DIAN LESTARI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DIAN LESTARI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicants' grounds were vague and lacked particulars; the Board and Director gave reasoned decisions showing no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the risk was found localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; the child's claim was adequately considered; there was no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1232
Parties
1st Applicant: Dian Lestari; 2nd Applicant: Dian Lestari Askana Shaki; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 May 2024
Case Number
HCAL78/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, HKBOR Article 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Minor Specific Protection
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat HKBOR Article 2 and 3 +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dian Lestari

1st Applicant

Dian Lestari Askana Shaki

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director committed procedural unfairness in determining non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether the decisions were irrational(Wednesbury) by failing to consider or properly weigh COI
  3. 3 Whether state protection/internal relocation made return safe

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicants' grounds were vague and lacked particulars; the Board and Director gave reasoned decisions showing no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the risk was found localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; the child's claim was adequately considered; there was no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for judicial review refused.