ROHIMAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

ROHIMAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s factual credibility findings; the Board reasonably found risks low, state protection and internal relocation viable, and the applicants did not show a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1845
Parties
1st Applicant: Rohimah; 2nd Applicant: Rohimah Zeina Az Zahra; 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
4 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL1891/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP Risk, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk Internal Relocation +4 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohimah

1st Applicant

Rohimah Zeina Az Zahra

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicants face a real risk of torture or violation of right to life if returned
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are viable alternatives

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s factual credibility findings; the Board reasonably found risks low, state protection and internal relocation viable, and the applicants did not show a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Joint application dismissed.