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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no sustainable risk of death or serious ill-treatment were not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3415
Parties
Applicant: Muarofah; 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
25 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1305/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review — Leave, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review (wednesbury)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk Internal Relocation Judicial Review — Leave +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muarofah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness or irrationality in finding no real risk of harm on refoulement
  2. 2 Whether risk of torture/CIDTP or violation of right to life was made out
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no sustainable risk of death or serious ill-treatment were not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed