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

SUNDARI 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 was entitled to reject her evidence as lacking credibility and reliability, no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown in the Board’s decision, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 158
Parties
Applicant: Sundari; 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
25 January 2024
Case Number
HCAL1808/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (consideration Under Order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Credibility Assessment State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sundari

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (consideration Under Order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedure in its adverse credibility finding
  2. 2 Whether there were substantial grounds for believing the applicant faces a real and foreseeable risk of torture, persecution or death on return to Indonesia
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success because the Board was entitled to reject her evidence as lacking credibility and reliability, no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown in the Board’s decision, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.