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

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

Extension of time was refused and the joint application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (that the applicants' evidence was unsubstantiated or incredible, that risks were low, and that state protection/internal relocation were available) involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1877
Parties
Applicant (1st): Siamah; Applicant (2nd): Muhamad Kelvin; 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
HCAL1907/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave; Extension of Time Refused; Substantive Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time for application for leave refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Risk Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Assessment Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siamah

Applicant (1st)

Muhamad Kelvin

Applicant (2nd)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave; Extension of Time Refused; Substantive Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting torture, BOR Article 2 and Article 3 and refugee Convention risks
  3. 3 Whether the applicants substantiated a real risk of harm or persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused and the joint application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (that the applicants' evidence was unsubstantiated or incredible, that risks were low, and that state protection/internal relocation were available) involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for application for leave refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed