BUI THI MI v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

BUI THI MI v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Application for extension of time refused because applicant was over seven months late without any explanation and the intended judicial review lacked any arguable merits since the Director and Board lawfully and fairly found no real or foreseeable risk and reasonable internal relocation; therefore no prospect of success and leave denied.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 296
Parties
Applicant: Bui Thi Mi; 1st Putative Respondent: Immigration Department; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL497/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Extension of Time for JR, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 HKBOR Internal Relocation +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Thi Mi

Applicant

Immigration Department

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has any real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting non-refoulement claims

Ratio Decidendi

Application for extension of time refused because applicant was over seven months late without any explanation and the intended judicial review lacked any arguable merits since the Director and Board lawfully and fairly found no real or foreseeable risk and reasonable internal relocation; therefore no prospect of success and leave denied.

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