ASTUTIK SUTADJI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ASTUTIK SUTADJI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any clear legal error or procedural unfairness: the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence, the applicant had interpreter assistance and earlier legal representation, and objective country information supported reasonable internal relocation, so there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2009
Parties
Applicant: Astutik Sutadji; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL623/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review — Leave, Credibility Assessment, Language Assistance, Legal Representation, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review — Leave Credibility Assessment +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Astutik Sutadji

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review — Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether applicant was entitled to free legal representation at appeal stage
  3. 3 Whether adequate language assistance was provided

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any clear legal error or procedural unfairness: the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence, the applicant had interpreter assistance and earlier legal representation, and objective country information supported reasonable internal relocation, so there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.