AGUS MUJIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AGUS MUJIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board correctly applied the law, made permissible factual findings on credibility and risk, identified and considered the issues for each applicant including the minor, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly the leave application lacked realistic prospects and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 525
Parties
1st Applicant: Agus Mujiati; 2nd Applicant: Agus Mujiati Jezzie Laura Ashary; 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
7 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL230/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (consolidated) / Leave Application and Withdrawal Hearing
Outcome
2nd Leave Application dismissed; leave granted to withdraw and 1st and 2nd Leave Applications withdrawn and dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Claims by Minors
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Claims by Minors

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agus Mujiati

1st Applicant

Agus Mujiati Jezzie Laura Ashary

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 (consolidated) / Leave Application and Withdrawal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, acted procedurally unfairly or reached a Wednesbury-unreasonable decision
  3. 3 Whether the minor's (A2) claim required separate assessment and/or raised distinct legal issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Board correctly applied the law, made permissible factual findings on credibility and risk, identified and considered the issues for each applicant including the minor, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly the leave application lacked realistic prospects and is dismissed, and the court granted leave to withdraw and dismissed the consolidated applications.

Court Disposition

2nd Leave Application dismissed; leave granted to withdraw and 1st and 2nd Leave Applications withdrawn and dismissed

Orders

  • 2nd Leave Application dismissed for lack of arguable grounds and realistic prospects of success
  • Leave granted to applicants to withdraw the 1st and 2nd Leave Applications and the 1st and 2nd Leave Applications are dismissed