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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's findings that the claim was a domestic/family dispute, that the risk level was low, that state protection and internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2011
Parties
Applicant: Latifa Baraja; 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
19 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1116/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non‑refoulement) / Application for Leave (on Paper) Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Risk of Torture, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee/non‑refoulement Law Non‑refoulement Risk of Torture Article 2 HKBOR (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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Latifa Baraja

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non‑refoulement) / Application for Leave (on Paper) Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the applicant's non‑refoulement/torture/persecution claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, death or CIDTP on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation was available to avoid refoulement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's findings that the claim was a domestic/family dispute, that the risk level was low, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable meant the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application for leave dismissed.