HARIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

HARIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant presented a significant unexplained delay of approximately four months without good reason and her grounds for judicial review were speculative, vague or constituted new claims without prior evidential basis; the Director's and Board's decisions disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness and there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1693
Parties
Applicant: Hariati; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL901/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused (notification of Judge's Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture (article 3 Hkbor), Risk of Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, Delay/extension of Time, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture (article 3 Hkbor) Risk of Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33) Internal Relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hariati

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused (notification of Judge's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established good reason to extend time for filing leave
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or procedurally in rejecting non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant presented a significant unexplained delay of approximately four months without good reason and her grounds for judicial review were speculative, vague or constituted new claims without prior evidential basis; the Director's and Board's decisions disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness and there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.