DARYANTI NINGSIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

DARYANTI NINGSIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board lawfully and fairly assessed the evidence, made credibility findings within its exclusive fact-finding role, correctly applied the law including section 37U(1), and its decision was not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect of success...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1413
Parties
Applicant: Daryanti Ningsih; Putative Respondent: 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
23 May 2024
Case Number
HCAL1418/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decided (refused)
Outcome
Leave to amend Form 86 granted; Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Torture, Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Torture Judicial Review +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daryanti Ningsih

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decided (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's factual findings are challengeable on judicial review
  2. 2 Whether there was error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality in the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established state involvement for torture under section 37U(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The Board lawfully and fairly assessed the evidence, made credibility findings within its exclusive fact-finding role, correctly applied the law including section 37U(1), and its decision was not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect of success and was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend Form 86 granted; Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to amend the notice of application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (Form 86) be granted.
  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.