SURATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SURATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant withdrew stating the risk no longer existed and, on the merits, the Director and the Board had correctly found no substantial grounds for believing a real risk of harm or torture existed given low intensity of past ill-treatment, availability of state...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2084
Parties
Applicant: Surati; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL843/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life, HKBOR Article 3 Prohibition of Torture, Refugee Convention Article 33 Non Refoulement, Internal Relocation, Immigration Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture HKBOR Article 2 Right to Life +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surati

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were substantial grounds for believing the applicant faced a real or substantial risk of harm or torture on return to Indonesia
  2. 2 Whether state protection was available to the applicant in Indonesia
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Indonesia was a reasonable and unduly harsh alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant withdrew stating the risk no longer existed and, on the merits, the Director and the Board had correctly found no substantial grounds for believing a real risk of harm or torture existed given low intensity of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation options in Indonesia.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed (Order dated 26 August 2020).