SRI WAHYUNI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SRI WAHYUNI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; factual findings that the risk was localized, low intensity, and that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available meant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1067
Parties
Applicant: Sri Wahyuni; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL309/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3), Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Judicial Review Leave Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Wahyuni

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced real and foreseeable risk from private actors such that state protection or internal relocation would be inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; factual findings that the risk was localized, low intensity, and that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available meant there were no substantial grounds for non-refoulement.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.