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

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

Extension of time was refused because there was no adequate explanation for the one‑day delay and the substantive intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success; the TCAB's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that there was no real risk of harm were reasonable and free of legal or procedural error, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 300
Parties
1st Applicant: Rinawati; 2nd Applicant: Rinawati Komal Preet Kour; 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
26 January 2022
Case Number
HCAL648/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Extension of Time (application Dismissed; Extension Refused; Amendment Allowed)
Outcome
Application to add 2nd applicant granted; extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Delay/extension of Time, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Asylum Delay/extension of Time Credibility Findings State Protection +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rinawati

1st Applicant

Rinawati Komal Preet Kour

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 / Decision on Leave Application and Extension of Time (application Dismissed; Extension Refused; Amendment Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for filing the leave application
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review is reasonably arguable / has a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the TCAB decision contained errors of law or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because there was no adequate explanation for the one‑day delay and the substantive intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success; the TCAB's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that there was no real risk of harm were reasonable and free of legal or procedural error, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Application to add 2nd applicant granted; extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application to add the 2nd applicant to the Form 86 be granted
  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused