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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Applicant's complaints are not reasonably arguable; the Adjudicator made credible findings based on the evidence, did not commit errors of law or procedural unfairness, served the high standard of fairness required in non-refoulement cases, and the Applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2123
Parties
Applicant: Suyati; 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 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL211/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution Risk, CIDTP (bor3), Risk to Life (bor2), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Asylum/non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution Risk +6 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suyati

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator fettered discretion or acted with procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator's credibility findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider relevant country of origin information (COI) or misapplied law on state protection and acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Applicant's complaints are not reasonably arguable; the Adjudicator made credible findings based on the evidence, did not commit errors of law or procedural unfairness, served the high standard of fairness required in non-refoulement cases, and the Applicant has no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused