AGUSTINNA HARDIANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

AGUSTINNA HARDIANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably found the risk to be low, characterized the threat as a private dispute with available state protection and viable internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1015
Parties
Applicant: Agustinna Hardiani; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1010/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Considered on Documents; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Internal Relocation +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agustinna Hardiani

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Considered on Documents; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonably arguable ground to challenge the Board's decision on non-refoulement grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board made errors of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting risk of torture, BOR Article 3 risk, BOR Article 2 risk, and persecution under Article 33 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably found the risk to be low, characterized the threat as a private dispute with available state protection and viable internal relocation, and the court will not re-evaluate credibility or risk assessments absent legal error.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.