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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's assessment of BOR 2 risk fell within its fact-finding remit, no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, no fresh or particularised evidence undermined the Board's conclusions, internal relocation and state protection were reasonably assessed, and the child-specific ground was inapplicable as the second applicant is now an adult.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 921
Parties
1st Applicant: S; 2nd Applicant: JMA; 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 April 2024
Case Number
HCAL1902/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Decision (notification Refusing Leave)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; anonymity order set aside; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Refoulement, Right to Life (bor 2), Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Refoulement Right to Life (bor 2) Torture/cidtp +3 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

1st Applicant

JMA

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 Decision (notification Refusing Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in assessing BOR 2 (right to life) risk
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to take into account relevant considerations including publicity and positive state protection duties
  3. 3 Whether the Board misapplied the standard of proof or cherry-picked country of origin information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's assessment of BOR 2 risk fell within its fact-finding remit, no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, no fresh or particularised evidence undermined the Board's conclusions, internal relocation and state protection were reasonably assessed, and the child-specific ground was inapplicable as the second applicant is now an adult.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; anonymity order set aside; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review against the Board's Decision refused
  • Anonymity Order made on 22 September 2020 set aside