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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants' intended grounds lacked any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were not shown to be legally flawed, and no child‑specific non‑refoulement grounds were advanced that the Board had failed to consider.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2446
Parties
1st Applicant: Penol Sally Barsolaso; 2nd Applicant (minor): Diggs Paul Derrick; 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
3 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL765/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review — Decision Refusing Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Refugee Law, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review (leave), Procedural Irregularity, Child Specific Claims
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Refugee Law Internal Relocation +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penol Sally Barsolaso

1st Applicant

Diggs Paul Derrick

2nd Applicant (minor)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review — Decision Refusing Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had an arguable/non‑frivolous case meriting leave to judicially review the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were legally vulnerable to review
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation findings were irrational or erroneous in law

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants' intended grounds lacked any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were not shown to be legally flawed, and no child‑specific non‑refoulement grounds were advanced that the Board had failed to consider.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Joint application dismissed