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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's Decisions; the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and viable internal relocation were lawful and applicants had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3483
Parties
1st Applicant: Suratmah; 2nd Applicant: Boylan Jayden Paul; 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
3 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL1459/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Internal Relocation State Protection +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suratmah

1st Applicant

Boylan Jayden Paul

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 Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in dismissing the non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether internal relocation was reasonably available to avoid risk
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's Decisions; the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and viable internal relocation were lawful and applicants had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed