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

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

The Judge found the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's conclusions that there was no real risk, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claim was inadequately supported were not legally flawed or irrational; accordingly there was no prospect of success on judicial review and leave was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1224
Parties
Applicant: Supriadi; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL1524/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 and 3, Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Right to Legal Representation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 and 3 Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33) +3 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supriadi

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was entitled to legal representation at appeal before the Board
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in finding no real risk of harm
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge found the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's conclusions that there was no real risk, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claim was inadequately supported were not legally flawed or irrational; accordingly there was no prospect of success on judicial review and leave was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.