FIFIA NINGRUM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

FIFIA NINGRUM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's refusal to allow late filing or in the Director's risk assessment; the Board reasonably found lack of due diligence and absence of circumstances beyond the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2082
Parties
Applicant: Fifia Ningrum; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 August 2023
Case Number
HCAL675/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Delay and Late Filing, Torture and Ill Treatment Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Delay and Late Filing Torture and Ill Treatment Risk +3 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fifia Ningrum

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Appeal Board erred in refusing to allow late filing of the Notice of Appeal under s37ZT
  3. 3 Whether the Director of Immigration erred in assessing non-refoulement risk including torture, BOR 2 and BOR 3 risks and persecution risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's refusal to allow late filing or in the Director's risk assessment; the Board reasonably found lack of due diligence and absence of circumstances beyond the applicant's control, and the Director reasonably found the risk localized with viable internal relocation and state protection, so judicial review would be an improper rehearing.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.