RINI SARTINI v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

RINI SARTINI v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The leave application was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and the Director’s conclusion that internal relocation was reasonable were rational and supported by evidence,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2421
Parties
Applicant: Rini Sartini; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Case Number
HCAL991/2018
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, HKBOR Article 3 (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 3 (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) +4 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rini Sartini

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law in rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or state liability/due diligence failures were sufficiently considered
  3. 3 Whether relevant Country of Origin Information (COI) was properly considered or selectively relied upon

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and the Director’s conclusion that internal relocation was reasonable were rational and supported by evidence, and the applicant provided no particulars or further evidence to challenge those findings.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.