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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was significantly out of time without satisfactory explanation, the delay constituted an abuse of process, and the substantive grounds lacked realistic prospects of success as the adjudicator lawfully considered relevant COI, applied correct legal standards, found state protection and internal relocation available, and committed no error of law or procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1123
Parties
1st Applicant: Sumiatun; 2nd Applicant: D; 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
7 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL553/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, CIDTP, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Delay and Abuse of Process, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture CIDTP +8 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumiatun

1st Applicant

D

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for late filing of Form 86
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have arguable grounds for non-refoulement protection under torture/CIDTP/persecution/life risk
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator applied correct legal standards and adequate COI research

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was significantly out of time without satisfactory explanation, the delay constituted an abuse of process, and the substantive grounds lacked realistic prospects of success as the adjudicator lawfully considered relevant COI, applied correct legal standards, found state protection and internal relocation available, and committed no error of law or procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file Form 86 refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused