BEGUM SHULI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

BEGUM SHULI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Short delay of four days, combined with the Board's findings that the applicant's non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated, that she had admitted coming to Hong Kong for employment and that state protection and internal relocation were reasonable alternatives, meant there was no realistic prospect of success;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1367
Parties
Applicant: Begum Shuli; 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 June 2023
Case Number
HCAL739/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/extension of Time Application / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, State Protection and Internal Relocation, Prospect of Success
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Credibility Assessment State Protection and Internal Relocation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Begum Shuli

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/extension of Time Application / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for filing the leave application
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's non-refoulement claim has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Short delay of four days, combined with the Board's findings that the applicant's non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated, that she had admitted coming to Hong Kong for employment and that state protection and internal relocation were reasonable alternatives, meant there was no realistic prospect of success; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time refused
  • Application dismissed