YUFIATUL RIZQI YUSUF AND ANOTHER v. HUGH SUTHERLAND MCCALL, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

YUFIATUL RIZQI YUSUF AND ANOTHER v. HUGH SUTHERLAND MCCALL, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicants failed to particularise their grounds or identify any clear legal error, the Board and Director's findings that the threat was a localized private family dispute, that state protection and internal relocation in Indonesia were available, and that there was no procedural unfairness were reasonable and lawful; therefore there was no arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 590
Parties
1st Applicant: Yufiatul Rizqi Yusuf; 2nd Applicant: Yufiatul Rizqi Yusuf Ismail Jawara; Putative Respondent: Hugh Sutherland McCall, ESQ.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL215/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Non Refoulement/torture Claim / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review (leave)
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Procedural Fairness State Protection +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yufiatul Rizqi Yusuf

1st Applicant

Yufiatul Rizqi Yusuf Ismail Jawara

2nd Applicant

Hugh Sutherland McCall, ESQ.

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Non Refoulement/torture Claim / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in assessing risk of harm
  2. 2 Whether threats by a private actor amount to persecution or a BOR2/BOR3 risk
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicants failed to particularise their grounds or identify any clear legal error, the Board and Director's findings that the threat was a localized private family dispute, that state protection and internal relocation in Indonesia were available, and that there was no procedural unfairness were reasonable and lawful; therefore there was no arguable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.