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

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

Extension of time for filing the leave application was refused for both the First Decision (substantial unexplained delay of almost three years and ten months; alleged misapprehension that Director would re-screen on all grounds was not reasonably held) and the Second Decision (substantial unexplained delay of almost eleven and a half months; misapprehension that Immigration Department would inform the Board of address change was unreasonable and the challenge to the Second Decision had no prospect of success); accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 458
Parties
Applicant: AR; 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
6 February 2024
Case Number
HCAL2506/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application With Application for Extension of Time (order 53)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused; limited procedural relief granted (leave to amend Form 86 and to file further affirmation evidence)
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Delay, Change of Address Notification, Bill of Rights Article 2 (bor 2), Credibility of Explanations
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Human Rights Law (non Refoulement) Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Delay +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AR

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 With Application for Extension of Time (order 53)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time for filing leave to apply for judicial review in respect of two Board decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant’s explanations for delay (misapprehension about re-screening and belief Immigration Department would notify Board of address change) were credible and reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the substantive application had sufficient prospects of success to justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time for filing the leave application was refused for both the First Decision (substantial unexplained delay of almost three years and ten months; alleged misapprehension that Director would re-screen on all grounds was not reasonably held) and the Second Decision (substantial unexplained delay of almost eleven and a half months; misapprehension that Immigration Department would inform the Board of address change was unreasonable and the challenge to the Second Decision had no prospect of success); accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused; limited procedural relief granted (leave to amend Form 86 and to file further affirmation evidence)

Orders

  • Leave to amend the Form 86 granted
  • Leave to file further affirmation evidence granted