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

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

Leave was refused because the application was filed over four months out of time with no explanation and there was no reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Adjudicator's Decision; the Adjudicator had properly conducted an oral rehearing, considered the material and reasonably concluded the likelihood of harm was low, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1929
Parties
1st Applicant: Herminingsih Sucipto; 2nd Applicant: Herminingsih Sucipto Rafif Ar Haider; 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 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL1044/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on the Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Bill of Rights (bor2), Delay and Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, Torture Claims, Appeal to Torture Claims Appeal Board
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Bill of Rights (bor2) Delay and Extension of Time +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herminingsih Sucipto

1st Applicant

Herminingsih Sucipto Rafif Ar Haider

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave application was filed within time or whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether there was any arguable unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness in the Adjudicator's Decision
  3. 3 Whether judicial review is available after an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (TCAB) has been pursued and concluded

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the application was filed over four months out of time with no explanation and there was no reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Adjudicator's Decision; the Adjudicator had properly conducted an oral rehearing, considered the material and reasonably concluded the likelihood of harm was low, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
  • Application considered on the papers.