FABIO ARLYN TIMOGAN AND OTHERS v. EVAN RUTH, ESQ., ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

FABIO ARLYN TIMOGAN AND OTHERS v. EVAN RUTH, ESQ., ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because applicants failed to establish any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; A1's re-filed challenge was an abuse of process/res judicata after prior leave refusal; A2 and A3 were out of time with no good reason to extend; the Board's finding of low localized risk with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation was a matter for the primary decision-makers and not open to review on the evidence presented.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 79
Parties
1st Applicant: Fabio Arlyn Timogan; 2nd Applicant: Salaudin Rabia; 3rd Applicant: Salaudin Faheem; Putative Respondent: Evan Ruth, ESQ., Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 January 2020
Case Number
HCAL442/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision Refusing Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Res Judicata/abuse of Process, Limitation/extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +6 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fabio Arlyn Timogan

1st Applicant

Salaudin Rabia

2nd Applicant

Salaudin Faheem

3rd Applicant

Evan Ruth, ESQ., Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision Refusing Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether A1 is precluded by res judicata/abuse of process from re-litigating after prior leave refusal
  3. 3 Whether A2 and A3's leave application is out of time and whether time should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because applicants failed to establish any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; A1's re-filed challenge was an abuse of process/res judicata after prior leave refusal; A2 and A3 were out of time with no good reason to extend; the Board's finding of low localized risk with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation was a matter for the primary decision-makers and not open to review on the evidence presented.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application for extension of time refused.