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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably found the claim to be a localized private monetary dispute, that state protection and internal relocation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1092
Parties
Applicant: Suyatmi; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL325/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Procedural Fairness Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suyatmi

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has an arguable ground of judicial review against the Board's and Director's refusal of non-refoulement protection
  2. 2 Whether the Board and the Director erred in law, acted irrationally or denied procedural fairness in assessing risk of harm
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Indonesia was reasonably available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably found the claim to be a localized private monetary dispute, that state protection and internal relocation in Indonesia were available, and thus there was no realistic prospect of success on a judicial review challenge.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.