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

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

The Board's Second Decision contained no error of law, no procedural unfairness and was not irrational; its factual findings (including lack of substantiation of threats, availability of state protection and internal relocation) were within the Board's fact‑finding remit, so the applicant had no realistic prospect...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2220
Parties
Applicant: Indah Mayasari; 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
21 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1086/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, BOR Article 3 (cidtp), BOR Article 2 (right to Life), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk BOR Article 3 (cidtp) BOR Article 2 (right to Life) +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indah Mayasari

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's Second Decision involved errors of law or procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Board's findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's Second Decision contained no error of law, no procedural unfairness and was not irrational; its factual findings (including lack of substantiation of threats, availability of state protection and internal relocation) were within the Board's fact‑finding remit, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave dismissed on 21 July 2022