DEWI AISYAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DEWI AISYAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board had separately and adequately considered the child's claim, found credibility defects in the mother's evidence, and reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation made non-refoulement protection unwarranted; lack of legal representation for the child was an irregularity only and did not establish an arguable ground for review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 170
Parties
1st Applicant: Dewi Aisyah; 2nd Applicant: Muhammad Fiaz Syahfira Farzana Mughal; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2025
Case Number
HCAL1420/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; leave dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Asylum, Judicial Review Leave, Child Specific Asylum Claims, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Asylum Judicial Review Leave +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dewi Aisyah

1st Applicant

Muhammad Fiaz Syahfira Farzana Mughal

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 is any reasonably arguable ground to sustain an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board or Director committed an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether a child's non-refoulement claim requires separate, child-specific consideration and whether lack of legal representation vitiates the process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board had separately and adequately considered the child's claim, found credibility defects in the mother's evidence, and reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation made non-refoulement protection unwarranted; lack of legal representation for the child was an irregularity only and did not establish an arguable ground for review.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; leave dismissed.

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd Applicants' application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
  • A request is to be made to the Director of Immigration to use his best endeavours to forward a copy of this decision together with the sealed order to the 1st Applicant for the 2nd Applicant in Indonesia.