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

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

Leave was refused because the application was filed more than 2.5 years late without any application for extension and, on merits, the Board's findings that the applicant did not face a real risk of harm, that internal relocation and state protection were available, and that the Board acted lawfully and fairly were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3574
Parties
Applicant: Juartini; 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
13 December 2024
Case Number
HCAL291/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture (article 3), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Delay/limitation, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture (article 3) State Protection Internal Relocation +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juartini

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave application was filed within time or whether extension of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in finding no real risk of harm
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation and state protection in Indonesia were viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the application was filed more than 2.5 years late without any application for extension and, on merits, the Board's findings that the applicant did not face a real risk of harm, that internal relocation and state protection were available, and that the Board acted lawfully and fairly were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused