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

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

Leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars and were therefore not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board applied proper standards in finding low risk, credible state protection and reasonable internal relocation options, and there was no identified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2357
Parties
Applicant: Taripudin; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1358/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taripudin

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and the Director erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether threats from private creditors amount to a torture/Article 3 or non-derogable Article 2 risk or persecution under Article 33 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Indonesia is a viable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars and were therefore not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board applied proper standards in finding low risk, credible state protection and reasonable internal relocation options, and there was no identified legal error or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed