JON VIRGELITA SABIDO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

JON VIRGELITA SABIDO 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, which reasonably assessed the risk as low, accepted availability of state protection and internal relocation, and properly considered the minor's circumstances, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 2159
Parties
1st Applicant: Jon Virgelita Sabido; 2nd Applicant: Dass Ibrahim; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2025
Case Number
HCAL899/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Minor Specific Claims, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jon Virgelita Sabido

1st Applicant

Dass Ibrahim

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's or Director's decision warranting judicial review leave
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants face real risk of torture, violation of BOR Articles 2 or 3, or persecution on return to the Philippines
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within the Philippines was a reasonable and available alternative

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, which reasonably assessed the risk as low, accepted availability of state protection and internal relocation, and properly considered the minor's circumstances, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave for the 1st and 2nd Applicants to apply for judicial review be refused.