Read the full judgment text of CACV 249/2023 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 May 2024 before Kwan VP, K Yeung J.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claims – torture claims – Torture Claims Appeal Board – Country of Origin Information (COI) – independent assessment of COI – separate consideration of minors' claims – Pakistan – Shia Muslims – persecution risk – state protection – internal relocation – Bill of Rights – Convention refugee – Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) s.37U(1) – Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) Articles 2 and 3 – 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Article 33 – whether the Board failed to conduct an independent assessment of the updated COI submitted by the applicants and instead copied COI from the Director's decision without addressing why additional COI was considered irrelevant – held: yes, the Board's decision is tainted with procedural unfairness for failing to demonstrate an independent assessment of COI – whether the Board failed to separately consider the non-refoulement claims of the 3rd to 5th applicants who were minors at the time of the decision, contrary to the principles in Fabio Arlyn Timogan and Re Jasvir Singh – held: yes, the Board had not conducted its independent enquiry into child-specific risks or the personal circumstances of the minor applicants as required by its positive statutory duty – appeal allowed by consent on the two grounds – Board's decision of 7 March 2019 quashed – matter remitted to the Board (differently constituted) for fresh determination – anonymity and sealing order restored – no order as to costs of the proceedings – applicants' own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations, Cap 91A.
Legal issues: Whether the Board failed to conduct an independent assessment of the Country of Origin Information · Whether the Board failed to separately consider the non-refoulement claims of the minor applicants
Outcome: Appeal allowed by consent on the COI Ground and the Separate Consideration Ground; the Board's decision of 7 March 2019 quashed and the matter remitted to the Board (differently constituted) for fresh determination.
Cited by 26 cases · Cites 5 cases