DERIANTI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DERIANTI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicants were almost six months late without any good reason and the intended judicial review lacked arguable merit; the Board and Director committed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement and torture claims, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1837
Parties
1st Applicant: Derianti; 2nd Applicant: Derianti Fernandez Rain Callen; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1534/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Child Protection Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derianti

1st Applicant

Derianti Fernandez Rain Callen

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for judicial review application
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting non-refoulement/torture claims
  3. 3 Credibility of the applicant and sufficiency of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicants were almost six months late without any good reason and the intended judicial review lacked arguable merit; the Board and Director committed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement and torture claims, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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