SUMIYATI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SUMIYATI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Because the applicants provided no reasons for about 1 year 10 months' delay, and there was no realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and its separate finding that Indonesia provided sufficient facilities, the court refused to extend time to appeal and dismissed the application.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 574
Parties
1st Applicant: Sumiyati; 2nd Applicant: Sumiyati Natasha Salsabila Nadhifa; 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
9 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL935/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (chambers)
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Non Refoulement Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Judicial Review +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumiyati

1st Applicant

Sumiyati Natasha Salsabila Nadhifa

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file a notice of appeal
  2. 2 Sufficiency of reasons for delay
  3. 3 Prospect of success of the intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants provided no reasons for about 1 year 10 months' delay, and there was no realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and its separate finding that Indonesia provided sufficient facilities, the court refused to extend time to appeal and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file notice of appeal refused
  • Application dismissed