SITI NGAISAH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SITI NGAISAH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings, and determinations that state protection and internal relocation were available, were within the Board's fact‑finding province and were not shown to involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly judicial review was not justified.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2083
Parties
1st Applicant (mother and Guardian Ad Litem): Siti Ngaisah; 2nd Applicant (son): Rai Nicoles; 3rd Applicant (son): Rai Nicky; Putative Respondent (appeal Body): 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
27 August 2024
Case Number
HCAL1313/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture/refugee Claims) / Leave Application Refused; Proceedings Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non‑refoulement Law Non‑refoulement Torture/cidtp State Protection +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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siti Ngaisah

1st Applicant (mother and Guardian Ad Litem)

Rai Nicoles

2nd Applicant (son)

Rai Nicky

3rd Applicant (son)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent (appeal Body)

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture/refugee Claims) / Leave Application Refused; Proceedings Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness or irrationality in dismissing the applicants' non‑refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established a real risk of persecution, torture or violation of rights under HKBOR Articles 2 or 3 on return to Indonesia
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings, and determinations that state protection and internal relocation were available, were within the Board's fact‑finding province and were not shown to involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly judicial review was not justified.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; applications dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for the applicants to apply for judicial review of the Board's Decisions refused
  • Non‑compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the applications of the 2nd and 3rd applicants nullities