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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to show any realistic or arguable prospect of success: the Board lawfully accepted uncontested facts, rationally assessed evidence and COI, found the asserted risks unsubstantiated, properly considered child-specific issues including the minor's entitlement to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 118
Parties
1st Applicant: Mimin Rohayani; 2nd Applicant (minor): Khandakar Zihad Al Amir; 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
23 January 2024
Case Number
HCAL1205/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused; Considered on Documents (applicants Absent)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (cat) Risk, Persecution (refugee Convention), Child Specific Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture (cat) Risk Persecution (refugee Convention) Child Specific Assessment +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mimin Rohayani

1st Applicant

Khandakar Zihad Al Amir

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; Considered on Documents (applicants Absent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board misdirected itself in law by applying an incorrect standard of proof or requiring past torture to infer future risk
  2. 2 Whether procedural impropriety occurred through reliance on outdated/hearsay country-of-origin information (COI), lack of adequate notice/translation and lack of legal representation
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted irrationally or cherry-picked COI and failed to assess state protection and internal relocation properly

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to show any realistic or arguable prospect of success: the Board lawfully accepted uncontested facts, rationally assessed evidence and COI, found the asserted risks unsubstantiated, properly considered child-specific issues including the minor's entitlement to Indonesian citizenship, and there was no procedural unfairness or prejudice arising from lack of representation to justify judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Joint application dismissed