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

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

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success because the Board's findings—that past ill-treatment was low intensity, that effective state protection was available in Indonesia, and that internal relocation was viable—were open to it on the evidence and involved no error of law, procedural...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 909
Parties
Applicant: Sudarsih; 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
11 April 2024
Case Number
HCAL1532/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture/cidtp), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review Supervisory Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture/cidtp) +3 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

Sudarsih

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces real risk of torture or ill-treatment by private actor on return to Indonesia
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Indonesia is available and effective
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Indonesia is viable

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success because the Board's findings—that past ill-treatment was low intensity, that effective state protection was available in Indonesia, and that internal relocation was viable—were open to it on the evidence and involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed