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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants identified no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; those bodies lawfully and rationally assessed the risk as localized and adequately addressed by reasonable internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1501
Parties
1st Applicant: Paglingayen Rosalyn Ringor; 2nd Applicant: Ringor Jasmine Cressel Andrada; 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
28 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL870/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Standard of Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Standard of Judicial Review +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paglingayen Rosalyn Ringor

1st Applicant

Ringor Jasmine Cressel Andrada

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants are entitled to non-refoulement protection under torture risk, BOR Article 3 or refugee convention grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board committed error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in assessing risk
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within the Philippines is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants identified no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; those bodies lawfully and rationally assessed the risk as localized and adequately addressed by reasonable internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

leave refused

Orders

  • Ringor Jasmine Cressel Andrada be included in these proceedings as the 2nd Applicant
  • leave to apply for judicial review refused