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

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

The application for leave was dismissed because it was brought out of time without any good reason for extension and, on the merits, the Board's factual findings rejecting the applicant's unsubstantiated assertions were rational, supported by the evidence and free from procedural unfairness or legal error; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1624
Parties
Applicant: Mongkhon Sawit; 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
30 December 2020
Case Number
HCAL771/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Asylum, Delay and Time Extension, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Asylum Delay and Time Extension Procedural Fairness +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mongkhon Sawit

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was made out of time and whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision rejecting non-refoulement protection was legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's evidence was credible and established a real risk of harm

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because it was brought out of time without any good reason for extension and, on the merits, the Board's factual findings rejecting the applicant's unsubstantiated assertions were rational, supported by the evidence and free from procedural unfairness or legal error; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed
  • Refusal to extend time for filing the application