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

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

Although the Adjudicator arguably did not expressly state that he considered the merits when refusing late filing, the applicant's underlying non-refoulement claim was without merit and there was no realistic prospect that consideration of the merits on remittal would alter the outcome; therefore granting leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1425
Parties
Applicant: Camara Seydou; 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
2 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1022/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (considered on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Late Filing/extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Discretion to Extend Time, Assessment of Underlying Merits, Statutory Time Limits
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Late Filing/extension of Time Procedural Fairness Discretion to Extend Time Assessment of Underlying Merits +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Camara Seydou

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (considered on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator unlawfully failed to take the merits of the underlying non-refoulement claim into account when deciding an application for late filing of a Notice of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonably arguable ground and realistic prospect of success to justify granting leave for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether remitting the matter would alter the ultimate outcome

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Adjudicator arguably did not expressly state that he considered the merits when refusing late filing, the applicant's underlying non-refoulement claim was without merit and there was no realistic prospect that consideration of the merits on remittal would alter the outcome; therefore granting leave would be futile and leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.