RINI WIDIA WATI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RINI WIDIA WATI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicants failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board and Director made rational, evidence-based findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation in Indonesia were reasonably available, and judicial review is not a route to rehear such factual assessments.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2394
Parties
1st Applicant: Rini Widia Wati; 2nd Applicant: Khan Samra Khan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL868/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification of Judge's Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (hkbor Article 3)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Judicial Review Leave +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rini Widia Wati

1st Applicant

Khan Samra Khan

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification of Judge's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a reasonably arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision such as would justify leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants faced a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of non-derogable rights on return to Indonesia
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation in Indonesia was available to the Applicants

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicants failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board and Director made rational, evidence-based findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation in Indonesia were reasonably available, and judicial review is not a route to rehear such factual assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.