YENI ASTUTI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

YENI ASTUTI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The court refused leave because the 2nd and 3rd applicants had no realistic prospect of succeeding in judicial review: the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings (based on hearsay, speculation and inconsistent evidence) were unassailable on public law grounds; there was no established real and imminent risk nor evidence of state involvement; and state protection and internal relocation were viable alternatives, so the legal thresholds for non‑refoulement/torture/persecution were not met.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2562
Parties
1st Applicant: Yeni Astuti; 2nd Applicant (hcal 1710/2021): Magar Elsa; 2nd Applicant (hcal 548/2024): Magar Alita; 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
14 October 2024
Case Number
HCAL548/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Non Refoulement/torture Appeal Board Decisions / Decision on Applications for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Judicial Review (leave), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility and Fact‑finding
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Judicial Review (leave) State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeni Astuti

1st Applicant

Magar Elsa

2nd Applicant (hcal 1710/2021)

Magar Alita

2nd Applicant (hcal 548/2024)

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Non Refoulement/torture Appeal Board Decisions / Decision on Applications for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd and 3rd applicants have a realistic prospect of success in judicial review of the Board's decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were vitiated by public law error
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available as alternatives

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the 2nd and 3rd applicants had no realistic prospect of succeeding in judicial review: the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings (based on hearsay, speculation and inconsistent evidence) were unassailable on public law grounds; there was no established real and imminent risk nor evidence of state involvement; and state protection and internal relocation were viable alternatives, so the legal thresholds for non‑refoulement/torture/persecution were not met.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; applications dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse leave to the 2nd and 3rd applicants to apply for judicial review of the Board's decisions
  • Dismiss the 2nd and 3rd applicants' applications