ARGE WIDYA ASTUTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ARGE WIDYA ASTUTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the conclusions on availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were within their primary fact‑finding remit and not open to successful challenge on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3569
Parties
Applicant: Arge Widya Astuti; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL115/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Torture, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture), Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Standards
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Asylum Torture HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture) +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arge Widya Astuti

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an arguable ground of illegality, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board and the Director erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting the non‑refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Indonesia is a reasonable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the conclusions on availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were within their primary fact‑finding remit and not open to successful challenge on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused