CHAMPA SAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

CHAMPA SAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave application was warranted because the applicant's almost nine months' unexplained delay was inordinate, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and there was no prospect of success such that leave should be refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2428
Parties
Applicant: Champa Sam; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL2391/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application; Extension of Time Application Refused and Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) +6 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Champa Sam

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; Extension of Time Application Refused and Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for leave application under Order 53 r4(1)
  2. 2 Whether applicant identified an arguable ground of legal error in the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were irrational or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave application was warranted because the applicant's almost nine months' unexplained delay was inordinate, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and there was no prospect of success such that leave should be refused.

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 of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 29 October 2024 be refused.
  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.