RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board and Director reasonably found no real risk of serious harm and that internal relocation and state protection were available, so judicial review was not appropriate to re‑hear the merits.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1231
Parties
1st Applicant: Riris Tanti Wilujeng; 2nd Applicant: Ibrahim Sadaqat Insan; 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
HCAL285/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Children's Rights
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution Internal Relocation +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riris Tanti Wilujeng

1st Applicant

Ibrahim Sadaqat Insan

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

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 there were substantial grounds to believe applicants faced real risk of harm or death from family members if returned to Indonesia
  2. 2 Whether state or police protection and internal relocation in Indonesia made return reasonable
  3. 3 Whether Board and Director erred in law, acted irrationally or denied procedural fairness warranting judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board and Director reasonably found no real risk of serious harm and that internal relocation and state protection were available, so judicial review was not appropriate to re‑hear the merits.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed