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

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

Leave was refused because the Board's findings that the applicants failed to establish a real and substantial risk of torture, CIDTP or breach of the right to life were rational and supported by evidence and COI; state protection and viable internal relocation were available; applicants had no realistic prospect of success and there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness requiring intervention.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 781
Parties
1st Applicant: Wasinah; 2nd Applicant: Wasinah Janpul; 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
30 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1335/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refusal)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP State Protection Internal Relocation +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wasinah

1st Applicant

Wasinah Janpul

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 / Decision on Leave Application (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were substantial grounds for believing the applicants faced a real risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of right to life if returned to Indonesia
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or committed procedural unfairness such that judicial review is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's findings that the applicants failed to establish a real and substantial risk of torture, CIDTP or breach of the right to life were rational and supported by evidence and COI; state protection and viable internal relocation were available; applicants had no realistic prospect of success and there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness requiring intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused