JEMBA SAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

JEMBA SAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for extension of time is refused because the applicant was inordinate and substantially out of time with no good reason for delay and the intended judicial review discloses no reasonably arguable ground: the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that the risk was localized and internal relocation available involved no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention; accordingly leave is dismissed.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2372
Parties
Applicant: Jemba Sami; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 September 2024
Case Number
HCAL2139/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application — Extension of Time Refused and Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time for leave application refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Findings +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jemba Sami

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application — Extension of Time Refused and Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time under Order 53 r 4(1) Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A)
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has arguable merit
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time is refused because the applicant was inordinate and substantially out of time with no good reason for delay and the intended judicial review discloses no reasonably arguable ground: the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that the risk was localized and internal relocation available involved no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention; accordingly leave is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for leave application refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed