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

CALUZA VICKY BALONG 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 application merely re-argued factual findings by the Board; the Board lawfully evaluated the applicants' evidence, found the matter to be a private domestic dispute with non-serious injuries, accepted that state protection and internal relocation were available, and its decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1286
Parties
1st Applicant: Caluza Vicky Balong; 2nd Applicant (minor): Caluza Ezi Nhe; 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
17 May 2023
Case Number
HCAL516/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Asylum, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Asylum 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caluza Vicky Balong

1st Applicant

Caluza Ezi Nhe

2nd Applicant (minor)

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision involved errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether the Director's earlier decision was reviewable once the Board's decision was made

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application merely re-argued factual findings by the Board; the Board lawfully evaluated the applicants' evidence, found the matter to be a private domestic dispute with non-serious injuries, accepted that state protection and internal relocation were available, and its decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave given to amend Form 86 to name the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as proposed respondent and the Director as interested party
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused