MUGIYEM TRI LESTARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MUGIYEM TRI LESTARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because, applying rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions: the applicant's evidence was found to be exaggerated or of low intensity, state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation in Indonesia were available, and the complaint about lack of legal representation was without merit; therefore there was no reasonably arguable prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2510
Parties
Applicant: Mugiyem Tri Lestari; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL916/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non‑refoulement) / Leave Stage — Decision Refusing Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life, HKBOR Article 3 Prohibition of Torture/cruel Treatment, Persecution (1951 Refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, State/police Protection, Right to Legal Representation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life HKBOR Article 3 Prohibition of Torture/cruel Treatment +5 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mugiyem Tri Lestari

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non‑refoulement) / Leave Stage — Decision Refusing Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting the applicant's non‑refoulement claims (torture, BOR 2, BOR 3, persecution)
  2. 2 Whether state/police protection in Indonesia was unavailable because of systemic corruption and bribery
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Indonesia would be unreasonable or unduly harsh for the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because, applying rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions: the applicant's evidence was found to be exaggerated or of low intensity, state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation in Indonesia were available, and the complaint about lack of legal representation was without merit; therefore there was no reasonably arguable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.