Z v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Z v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator made detailed, rational credibility findings and reasoned assessments that internal relocation to large Indonesian cities was reasonable, there was no real risk on any non-refoulement ground, and no error of law or breach of procedural fairness was demonstrated such that the decision could be impugned as Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the application had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2374
Parties
Applicant: Z; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL202/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused at Decision Stage
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Bill of Rights (bor) Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Judicial Review Leave Test, State Acquiescence, Country of Origin Information (coi) Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Bill of Rights (bor) Articles 2 and 3 +7 more

Case Brief

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused at Decision Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or procedurally unfairly in assessing non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider state acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator failed to conduct sufficient independent inquiry into COI

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator made detailed, rational credibility findings and reasoned assessments that internal relocation to large Indonesian cities was reasonable, there was no real risk on any non-refoulement ground, and no error of law or breach of procedural fairness was demonstrated such that the decision could be impugned as Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the application had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • No order as to costs