HETI WIHANI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

HETI WIHANI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑evaluate those primary assessments in the absence of such errors.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2329
Parties
1st Applicant: Heti Wihani; 2nd Applicant: Rajat Kumar Barun; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL869/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture/article 3 HKBOR, Persecution/refugee Convention Article 33, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review — Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture/article 3 HKBOR Persecution/refugee Convention Article 33 Internal Relocation +1 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heti Wihani

1st Applicant

Rajat Kumar Barun

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants face a real risk of torture or Article 3 ill-treatment if returned to Indonesia
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation are reasonably available
  3. 3 Whether the Director or the Board committed legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑evaluate those primary assessments in the absence of such errors.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.