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

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

Leave was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record, there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision, and the applicant therefore lacked a reasonable prospect of success on a substantive judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 421
Parties
Applicant: Sulastri; 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
23 February 2021
Case Number
HCAL1115/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused (decision on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Judicial Review, Standard of Review (wednesbury), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Claims Judicial Review Standard of Review (wednesbury) +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sulastri

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 Refused (decision on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness in rejecting the applicant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established risk of torture, death or CIDTP if returned
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation rendered the claim non-viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record, there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision, and the applicant therefore lacked a reasonable prospect of success on a substantive judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed