BOOL LORENZA ATIENZA AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BOOL LORENZA ATIENZA AND OTHERS 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's adverse credibility findings, conclusions on availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not shown to be legally flawed, and there were no separate non-refoulement grounds specific to the children that would amount to procedural unfairness or error of law warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2487
Parties
1st Applicant: Bool Lorenza Atienza; 2nd Applicant: Bool Jay Gonzales; 3rd Applicant: Bool Lander Jay Atienza; 4th Applicant: Bool Jasmine Lei Atienza; 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
10 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL925/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review of Asylum Decisions, Child Asylum Claims
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP State Protection +4 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bool Lorenza Atienza

1st Applicant

Bool Jay Gonzales

2nd Applicant

Bool Lander Jay Atienza

3rd Applicant

Bool Jasmine Lei Atienza

4th 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 procedure in assessing credibility of applicants
  2. 2 Whether state protection was available to applicants
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation was viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings, conclusions on availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not shown to be legally flawed, and there were no separate non-refoulement grounds specific to the children that would amount to procedural unfairness or error of law warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused