SITI NURUSSAADAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SITI NURUSSAADAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicants' complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Director and the Board made lawful, reasonable and adequately founded decisions on risk, state protection and internal relocation; procedural complaints (legal representation, translation, Director's absence) did not show prejudice and were insufficient to establish procedural unfairness or error of law.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1560
Parties
1st Applicant (mother): Siti Nurussaadah; 2nd Applicant (child): S (a minor); 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL681/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siti Nurussaadah

1st Applicant (mother)

S (a minor)

2nd Applicant (child)

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 timeliness of the application against Director and Board
  3. 3 whether procedural fairness was denied (legal representation, language assistance, fair hearing)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicants' complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Director and the Board made lawful, reasonable and adequately founded decisions on risk, state protection and internal relocation; procedural complaints (legal representation, translation, Director's absence) did not show prejudice and were insufficient to establish procedural unfairness or error of law.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.