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

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

Applicant was three weeks late and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because the Board had considered BOR 2 and found no real risk, identified available state protection and viable internal relocation; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1616
Parties
Applicant: Ernawati; 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
26 June 2024
Case Number
HCAL1408/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Extension of Time Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal; Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Right to Life (bor 2), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Rules
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement +4 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernawati

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 File Notice of Appeal; Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file a notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether there is a realistic prospect of success in the intended judicial review appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Board properly considered BOR 2 (right to life) risk

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant was three weeks late and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because the Board had considered BOR 2 and found no real risk, identified available state protection and viable internal relocation; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file notice of appeal refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed