OTAD JENNY BERGONIO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

OTAD JENNY BERGONIO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully found low risk of serious harm, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the court will not re-hear the factual risk assessment of primary decision-makers.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2010
Parties
1st Applicant: Otad Jenny Bergonio; 2nd Applicant: Bandela Cherrytha; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL626/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 Right to Life, Article 3 Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Standard of Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 Right to Life +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otad Jenny Bergonio

1st Applicant

Bandela Cherrytha

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the Applicants' non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of torture, death or persecution on return to the Philippines (BOR Articles 2 and 3, Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC, Refugee Convention Art 33)
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully found low risk of serious harm, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the court will not re-hear the factual risk assessment of primary decision-makers.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused