INDAH v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

INDAH v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and unarguable; the Director and the Board conducted proper evaluations of COI and risk, reasonably found the risk localized and internal relocation available, and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated to support a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 743
Parties
Applicant: Indah; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL525/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Risk Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Impropriety, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Assessment Internal Relocation +2 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indah

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural impropriety in the use or assessment of Country of Origin Information (COI)
  3. 3 Whether the concept of extended state acquiescence and due diligence was misapplied or ignored

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and unarguable; the Director and the Board conducted proper evaluations of COI and risk, reasonably found the risk localized and internal relocation available, and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated to support a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused