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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were refused because the application was made more than three years late and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were unimpeached by any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the Wednesbury standard.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 673
Parties
Applicant: Md Ronye; 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
3 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL1118/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered and Refused; Notification of Judge's Decision Issued
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture / Convention Against Torture (cat), Judicial Review Leave and Delay, Credibility Findings, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Limitation/extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Public Law Non Refoulement Torture / Convention Against Torture (cat) Judicial Review Leave and Delay +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Ronye

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 / Leave Application Considered and Refused; Notification of Judge's Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave application was time-barred and whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its Decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were reviewable on judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were refused because the application was made more than three years late and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were unimpeached by any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the Wednesbury standard.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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