KANTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

KANTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; those decisions reasonably found the risk to be a localized private dispute with available state protection and realistic internal relocation, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2135
Parties
Applicant: Kanto; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Case Number
HCAL833/2021
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, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Screening Decision, Appeal to Torture Claims Appeal Board
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Judicial Review +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanto

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

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 there is any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or persecution from a private actor amounting to non-refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation in Indonesia is reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; those decisions reasonably found the risk to be a localized private dispute with available state protection and realistic internal relocation, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.