Read the full judgment text of CACV 66/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 July 2021 before Cheung JA, Chu JA.
Immigration – non-refoulement – judicial review – leave to apply – appeal – standard of review – credibility – inconsistencies – internal relocation – torture risk – BOR 3 risk – BOR 2 risk – persecution risk – The applicant, a Pakistani national, entered Hong Kong illegally and claimed fear of harm from relatives due to a land dispute. The Director of Immigration rejected his claim and the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed his appeal, finding his evidence inconsistent and noting available relocation options. The applicant sought leave for judicial review but provided no specific grounds; the Deputy High Court Judge refused leave as the intended review was unarguable. On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the established standard that the court will only interfere if the judge erred in law, failed to consider relevant matters, or was plainly wrong. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the judge's decision or the Board's findings. The appeal was dismissed as unarguable.
Legal issues: Standard of review on appeal from refusal of leave for judicial review
Outcome: Appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases