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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the adjudicator thoroughly reheard the claim, gave adequate reasons, correctly applied the law and reasonably concluded on the evidence that the applicants failed to establish a real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or of deprivation of life; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2138
Parties
Applicant (1st): Wartini; Applicant (2nd Minor): Wartini Ficky Ahmeed Khan; 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
27 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1703/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused for both applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Torture Risk, CIDTP (article 3 Hkboro), Persecution Under 1951 Refugee Convention, Right to Life (article 2 Hkboro)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law International Law (torture Convention) Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wartini

Applicant (1st)

Wartini Ficky Ahmeed Khan

Applicant (2nd Minor)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB/Director erred in law or procedurally in dismissing non-refoulement/torture/persecution/right to life claims
  3. 3 Whether the applicants face a real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or deprivation of the right to life if returned to Indonesia

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the adjudicator thoroughly reheard the claim, gave adequate reasons, correctly applied the law and reasonably concluded on the evidence that the applicants failed to establish a real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or of deprivation of life; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused for both applicants

Orders

  • Refuse leave to apply for judicial review for the applicant and her son
  • Application to be decided on the papers (no oral hearing requested)