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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground demonstrating an arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness: the Board's factual findings that there was no reliable evidence of the alleged debt or credible threat, only verbal threats, and that state protection and internal relocation were available meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1898
Parties
Applicant: Minto Harti; 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 2024
Case Number
HCAL1423/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused on Paper
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refoulement, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Risk Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Refoulement Internal Relocation +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minto Harti

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 Application Refused on Paper

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or committed procedural unfairness in dismissing the appeal without an oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of the right to life if returned

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground demonstrating an arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness: the Board's factual findings that there was no reliable evidence of the alleged debt or credible threat, only verbal threats, and that state protection and internal relocation were available meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed