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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director's decision was not susceptible to review once an appeal to the Board was pursued; the applicant was out of time for the Board's first decision but time was extended; on the merits the Board accepted the applicant's facts but reasonably concluded...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2219
Parties
Applicant: Susilowati; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1630/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (cidtp), Article 2 BOR (right to Life), Refugee Convention/persecution, Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (cidtp) Article 2 BOR (right to Life) Refugee Convention/persecution +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susilowati

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision is amenable to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim amounted to torture/CIDTP or persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director's decision was not susceptible to review once an appeal to the Board was pursued; the applicant was out of time for the Board's first decision but time was extended; on the merits the Board accepted the applicant's facts but reasonably concluded there was no state involvement or risk attracting protection under torture/CIDTP or refugee grounds and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director's decision dismissed in limine