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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of future risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation are within the Board's fact-finding province and do not disclose a realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2145
Parties
Applicant: Sumini Soimun; 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
24 August 2023
Case Number
HCAL1343/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, CIDTP (article 3 Hkbor), Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Test
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture CIDTP (article 3 Hkbor) +5 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumini Soimun

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 the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, death or CIDTP on return to Indonesia
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation is reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of future risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation are within the Board's fact-finding province and do not disclose a realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed