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

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

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board provided adequate, reasoned findings on credibility and risk, identified internal relocation and state protection as available, and there was no arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality disclosed to permit judicial review; the court will not substitute its view for primary decision-makers on evidence-based risk assessments.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2293
Parties
Applicant: Rini Agustina; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1000/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture and Ill Treatment), Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life) Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture and Ill Treatment) +3 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rini Agustina

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are substantial grounds for believing the applicant faces a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment if returned to Indonesia
  2. 2 Whether internal relocation within Indonesia is a reasonable and available alternative negating non-refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing BOR2/BOR3 or torture risks

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board provided adequate, reasoned findings on credibility and risk, identified internal relocation and state protection as available, and there was no arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality disclosed to permit judicial review; the court will not substitute its view for primary decision-makers on evidence-based risk assessments.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused