PENOL SALLY BARSOLASO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

PENOL SALLY BARSOLASO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time was refused because, despite a short delay of eight days, the intended appeal was hopeless: the Board credibly rejected the 1st applicant's evidence, found state protection and internal relocation available, identified no child‑specific issue, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success to justify extension.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 294
Parties
1st Applicant: Penol Sally Barsolaso; 2nd Applicant: Diggs Paul Derrick; 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
5 February 2024
Case Number
HCAL765/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Extension of Time Application to File Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non‑refoulement Claim, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Prospect of Success
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Non‑refoulement Refugee and Asylum Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non‑refoulement Claim +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penol Sally Barsolaso

1st Applicant

Diggs Paul Derrick

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Extension of Time Application to File Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in factual findings and in rejecting the non‑refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because, despite a short delay of eight days, the intended appeal was hopeless: the Board credibly rejected the 1st applicant's evidence, found state protection and internal relocation available, identified no child‑specific issue, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success to justify extension.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

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