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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-type irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that past ill-treatment was of low intensity, state protection was available and internal relocation viable meant no realistic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 825
Parties
Applicant: Unengsih; 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
28 March 2022
Case Number
HCAL243/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment State Protection +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unengsih

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant demonstrated arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Board
  2. 2 Whether alleged treatment met legal definition of torture
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-type irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that past ill-treatment was of low intensity, state protection was available and internal relocation viable meant no realistic prospect of success on proposed judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed