LE THI BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

LE THI BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time to file Form 86 was refused and leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant filed 44 months and 26 days late without any explanation, the unexplained and inordinate delay evidenced lack of intention to prosecute and abuse of process, and the Board's Decision showed no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2261
Parties
Applicant: Le Thi Binh; 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
22 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL448/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application; Extension of Time to File Refused; Leave Refused; Determined on Papers
Outcome
Extension of time to file the Form 86 is refused; Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Delay and Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Delay and Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Thi Binh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application; Extension of Time to File Refused; Leave Refused; Determined on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Form 86 was promptly filed and whether extension of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonable explanation for the 44 months and 26 days delay
  3. 3 Whether the substantive Decision disclosed errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to file Form 86 was refused and leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant filed 44 months and 26 days late without any explanation, the unexplained and inordinate delay evidenced lack of intention to prosecute and abuse of process, and the Board's Decision showed no detectable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality upon anxious scrutiny.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to file the Form 86 is refused; Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file Form 86 refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused