Read the full judgment text of CACV 246/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 September 2019 before Lam VP, Bharwaney J.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – refusal of leave – whether the Board erred in its assessment of risk of harm and credibility – whether the applicant was given a sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence – whether new fact-and-evidence sensitive arguments not raised below may be raised on appeal – scope of intervention by the Court of Appeal – applicant is a national of Liberia who overstayed in Hong Kong and was arrested on 22 October 2013 – his claim under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture was treated as a non-refoulement claim under the unified screening mechanism – the claim was based on a fear of harm or death at the hands of his granduncle over refusal to convert from Christianity to Islam – the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office rejected the claim, finding no substantial risk and finding the applicant not a credible witness – the Court of First Instance refused leave to apply for judicial review – on appeal, the applicant argued the judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and procedural unfairness, and that the Board had insufficiently permitted him to arrange evidence and had relied on outdated country-of-origin information – the court held that assessment of risk of harm, state protection, internal relocation, and credibility is primarily for the Director and the Board, and judicial review is not a further avenue of appeal – the court will only intervene where there is legal error, procedural unfairness, or irrationality, and will not entertain new fact-and-evidence sensitive arguments not raised below – the applicant's grounds were general assertions without particulars, the arguments about the Board's handling of evidence had already been raised and rejected, and the new arguments about country-of-origin information were not canvassed at first instance – reliance on section 37ZT was not relevant on appeal – appeal dismissed
Legal issues: Whether the Board erred in law or acted unfairly in its assessment of risk of harm and credibility · Whether the applicant was given sufficient opportunity to arrange evidence for his claim and appeal · Whether new fact-and-evidence sensitive arguments may be raised for the first time on appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Cited by 32 cases · Cites 6 cases