MASNAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MASNAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The application was refused because the applicant provided no good reason to extend the statutory three‑month limit (ignorance and awaiting legal aid were insufficient); the Adjudicator's decision was supported by adequate inquiry, reason and COI assessment and was not irrational or procedurally unfair; accordingly extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 369
Parties
Applicant: Masnah; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL712/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Delay/extension of Time, Judicial Review Grounds, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Delay/extension of Time Judicial Review Grounds +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masnah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is good reason to extend time for a late application for leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision was irrational, procedurally unfair or infected by error of law
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicant provided no good reason to extend the statutory three‑month limit (ignorance and awaiting legal aid were insufficient); the Adjudicator's decision was supported by adequate inquiry, reason and COI assessment and was not irrational or procedurally unfair; accordingly extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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