MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator's decision was lawful, provided detailed and adequate reasons, accepted the applicants' evidence on credibility, and reasonably found effective state protection and viable internal relocation such that there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or breach of the right to life; no error of law or procedural unfairness disclosed and no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 899
Parties
1st Applicant: Mangoba Melody Piedad; 2nd Applicant (minor by Next Friend and Legal Guardian): Galang Kyler Johan Rafael; 3rd Applicant (minor by Next Friend and Legal Guardian): Galang Kobe John Andrei; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL1680/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused on the Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Right to Life (bor/iccpr Article 2), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Family Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat +7 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mangoba Melody Piedad

1st Applicant

Galang Kyler Johan Rafael

2nd Applicant (minor by Next Friend and Legal Guardian)

Galang Kobe John Andrei

3rd Applicant (minor by Next Friend and Legal Guardian)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants face real risk of torture as defined in Immigration Ordinance Cap 115/Article 1 CAT
  2. 2 Whether applicants face risk of CIDTP under BOR Cap 383/Article 7 ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether applicants face persecution/non-refoulement risk under 1951 Refugee Convention Articles 33 and 1A(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator's decision was lawful, provided detailed and adequate reasons, accepted the applicants' evidence on credibility, and reasonably found effective state protection and viable internal relocation such that there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or breach of the right to life; no error of law or procedural unfairness disclosed and no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.