LAMA PASANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

LAMA PASANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was nearly three months late without adequate explanation and the substantive case was weak; even if time had been extended, the adjudicator properly conducted a paper review and the claims failed because they did not meet the legal thresholds for torture, CIDTP or persecution, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 448
Parties
Applicant: Lama Pasang; 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
9 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL355/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time and Refusal of Leave (notification)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Article 3 BOR, Persecution Under Refugee Convention, Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Oral Hearing Entitlement
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Article 3 BOR Persecution Under Refugee Convention +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lama Pasang

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time and Refusal of Leave (notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator was required to hold an oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether applicant established real risk of torture under Immigration Ordinance/CAT

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was nearly three months late without adequate explanation and the substantive case was weak; even if time had been extended, the adjudicator properly conducted a paper review and the claims failed because they did not meet the legal thresholds for torture, CIDTP or persecution, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file application refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused