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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants had no realistic prospect of success: the Board and Director lawfully assessed the risks, made adverse credibility findings supported by the record, identified availability of state protection and internal relocation, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and their findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1574
Parties
1st Applicant: Suryaningsih; 2nd Applicant: Suryaningsih Serena Amora; 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
16 June 2022
Case Number
HCAL1052/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (article 3 Hkbor), Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution), Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (article 3 Hkbor) Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor) +5 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suryaningsih

1st Applicant

Suryaningsih Serena Amora

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 leave should be granted to challenge the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board or Director erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly
  3. 3 Whether the applicants established substantial grounds for risk of harm, torture or persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants had no realistic prospect of success: the Board and Director lawfully assessed the risks, made adverse credibility findings supported by the record, identified availability of state protection and internal relocation, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and their findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused; applicants' joint application dismissed.