EDI SUBAGIO v. WINSTON LEUNG, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

EDI SUBAGIO v. WINSTON LEUNG, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant failed to establish any arguable or substantiated ground for judicial review; the Adjudicator's factual findings that the applicant gave vague and inconsistent accounts and failed to prove persecution, BOR2/BOR3 or torture risk and that there was no state involvement were open to him, and procedural complaints either conflicted with the applicant's oral evidence or lacked supporting evidence; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 348
Parties
Applicant: EDI Subagio; Putative Respondent: Winston Leung, the Adjudicator of the 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
15 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL1186/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused at First Instance
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Country of Origin Information and State Protection
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +1 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EDI Subagio

Applicant

Winston Leung, the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established reasonable grounds to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was breached by late provision of the hearing bundle or lack of interpreter
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator misdirected himself by requiring past torture to infer future risk

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any arguable or substantiated ground for judicial review; the Adjudicator's factual findings that the applicant gave vague and inconsistent accounts and failed to prove persecution, BOR2/BOR3 or torture risk and that there was no state involvement were open to him, and procedural complaints either conflicted with the applicant's oral evidence or lacked supporting evidence; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused and the application dismissed