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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board had applied fair procedures, considered the evidence (including country information) and reasonably concluded there was no substantiated risk to the mother or child and that state protection and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4872
Parties
1st Applicant: Yulistiani Besu; 2nd Applicant: Abdul Muhammad Sultan Abdullah; 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 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL1076/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Judicial Review, State Protection, Legal Representation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Judicial Review State Protection +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yulistiani Besu

1st Applicant

Abdul Muhammad Sultan Abdullah

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board breached public law requirements in its Decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to consider right to life (HKBOR Article 2) or Article 3 CIDTP
  3. 3 Whether the Board over-relied on country of origin information without addressing applicants' personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board had applied fair procedures, considered the evidence (including country information) and reasonably concluded there was no substantiated risk to the mother or child and that state protection and internal relocation were available; procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the application.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2nd applicant's application a nullity