IL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

IL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Extension of time refused because Applicant failed to show due diligence or good reasons for the near four-month delay beyond the statutory three-month limit (legal aid processing, loss of documents and solicitor nomination were not sufficient); substantive grounds had no realistic prospect of success because the Adjudicator did not err in law or procedure, his credibility findings were reasonable and the claims under torture, BOR3 and persecution were unsupported; granting out-of-time leave would prejudice public administration and effective immigration control.

Citation
IL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
Parties
Applicant: IL; Putative 1st Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Case Number
HCAL238/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Stage Application for Extension of Time Decided
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused; Nisi costs order made in favor of Director of Immigration
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (cidtp), Persecution, Judicial Review Leave, Extension of Time, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (cidtp) Persecution +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IL

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Putative 1st Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Stage Application for Extension of Time Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time under Order 53 r4(1) should be granted for application for leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or breached procedural fairness in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator applied correct legal tests for torture (s37U IO), BOR3/CIDTP and persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because Applicant failed to show due diligence or good reasons for the near four-month delay beyond the statutory three-month limit (legal aid processing, loss of documents and solicitor nomination were not sufficient); substantive grounds had no realistic prospect of success because the Adjudicator did not err in law or procedure, his credibility findings were reasonable and the claims under torture, BOR3 and persecution were unsupported; granting out-of-time leave would prejudice public administration and effective immigration control.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused; Nisi costs order made in favor of Director of Immigration

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to file for judicial review dismissed
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused