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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board's findings that the risk was low, state protection was available and internal relocation was feasible were not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2021] HKCFI 3383
Parties: Applicant: Maryati; 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: 30 November 2021
Case Number: HCAL511/2019
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage (order 53 R.3) — Papers Only
Outcome: Leave refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics: Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review — Leave
Source Language: en

Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp State Protection Internal Relocation +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Maryati

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 Stage (order 53 R.3) — Papers Only

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Board erred in law in assessing risk of torture or CIDTP
2 Whether state protection in Indonesia was unavailable or ineffective
3 Whether internal relocation within Indonesia was feasible

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed.

Orders

Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Application dismissed

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.