FITRI ANDARU AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

FITRI ANDARU AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's fact-findings that past ill-treatment was of low intensity/frequency, that there was no state involvement or means to locate the applicants, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be irrational or procedurally unfair; the 2nd applicant's appeal had been considered with legal representation before the Board; no breach of procedural fairness or entitlement to continuous free translation was established; leave for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2532
Parties
1st Applicant: Fitri Andaru; 2nd Applicant: Fitri Andaru Saqlain Muhammad Zain; 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
4 October 2024
Case Number
HCAL1850/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (judgment)
Outcome
Leave refused; applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave for Judicial Review, Child Specific Considerations
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Procedural Fairness +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fitri Andaru

1st Applicant

Fitri Andaru Saqlain Muhammad Zain

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the Board breached procedural fairness (including failure to provide language assistance)
  2. 2 whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  3. 3 whether the applicants face real risk engaging BOR Article 2 or 3, Refugee Convention Article 33 or Part VIIC Immigration Ordinance (torture)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's fact-findings that past ill-treatment was of low intensity/frequency, that there was no state involvement or means to locate the applicants, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be irrational or procedurally unfair; the 2nd applicant's appeal had been considered with legal representation before the Board; no breach of procedural fairness or entitlement to continuous free translation was established; leave for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; applications dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applications dismissed