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

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

The court refused leave because the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed credibility and COI, provided adequate reasons for its conclusions on all applicable USM grounds, correctly applied legal principles including availability of state protection and internal relocation, and its decision satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test so there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2285
Parties
1st Applicant: Restu Dwi Ambarwulan; 2nd Applicant: Restu-Dwi-Ambarwulan Raisha Putri Sadou; 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
12 September 2024
Case Number
HCAL492/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Risk Assessment, Unified Screening Mechanism, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Assessment Unified Screening Mechanism +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Restu Dwi Ambarwulan

1st Applicant

Restu-Dwi-Ambarwulan Raisha Putri Sadou

2nd Applicant

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 the Board erred in law or procedurally in assessing country of origin information (COI)
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to give adequate reasons for its assessments under BOR2 and BOR3
  3. 3 Whether the Board conducted sufficient due diligence and enquiry into COI

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed credibility and COI, provided adequate reasons for its conclusions on all applicable USM grounds, correctly applied legal principles including availability of state protection and internal relocation, and its decision satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test so there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused (refusal dated 12 September 2024).