MBUNGA MOKONGA PIERROT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MBUNGA MOKONGA PIERROT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board lawfully applied s37ZT and the Petition Guide, the applicant's explanation for late filing was an unsupported bare assertion undermining credibility, there were no extenuating circumstances or supporting evidence and no arguable merit in the substantive BOR 2 claim given the prior final dismissal,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2205
Parties
Applicant: Mbunga Mokonga Pierrot; 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
4 September 2024
Case Number
HCAL353/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Late Filing and Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Human Rights Non Refoulement Late Filing and Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Standard of Review +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbunga Mokonga Pierrot

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in refusing to allow late filing of the Notice of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant could amend the leave application to challenge the 2016 Decision and obtain extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the Board's refusal involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality

Ratio Decidendi

The Board lawfully applied s37ZT and the Petition Guide, the applicant's explanation for late filing was an unsupported bare assertion undermining credibility, there were no extenuating circumstances or supporting evidence and no arguable merit in the substantive BOR 2 claim given the prior final dismissal, therefore the leave application failed on grounds of delay and lack of realistic prospect and must be refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused