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

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

The court refused to extend time and refused leave because the applicants offered no good reason for their delay and the underlying non‑refoulement claims lacked merit: the TCAB's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and not legally flawed, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and both leave applications dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 610
Parties
1st Applicant: Sumiyati; 2nd Applicant: Sumiyati Natasha Salsabila Nadhifa; 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
11 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL618/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Decisions) / Decision on Extension of Time and Refusal of Leave; Final Dismissal
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused; both applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Domestic Violence
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Asylum Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time Procedural Fairness +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumiyati

1st Applicant

Sumiyati Natasha Salsabila Nadhifa

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 (non Refoulement Decisions) / Decision on Extension of Time and Refusal of Leave; Final Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend time for out‑of‑time applications for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB/Director erred in law or procedure in rejecting the non‑refoulement claims
  3. 3 Assessment of credibility of the applicants and weight to be given to inconsistent evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time and refused leave because the applicants offered no good reason for their delay and the underlying non‑refoulement claims lacked merit: the TCAB's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and not legally flawed, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and both leave applications dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for HCAL 935/2018 refused
  • Extension of time for HCAL 618/2020 refused