MRMS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

MRMS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's 44.5 month delay in filing was inordinate and inexcusable, no good reason was shown to extend time, the delay is detrimental to good administration (particularly given the availability of the USM as the appropriate primary forum), and therefore leave is refused without consideration of the merits.

Citation
MRMS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: MRMS; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Wesley Wong (Deputy Chairperson, Torture Claims Appeal Board)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 September 2016
Case Number
HCAL53/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Under Article 3 CAT / Leave Application With Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Convention Against Torture (article 3), Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness (oral Hearing), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation, State Acquiescence, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Against Torture (article 3) Extension of Time for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness (oral Hearing) +4 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRMS

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Wesley Wong (Deputy Chairperson, Torture Claims Appeal Board)

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Under Article 3 CAT / Leave Application With Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a 'good reason' to extend the 3 month time limit for seeking leave to apply for judicial review given a 44.5 month delay
  2. 2 Whether the delay is inordinate and inexcusable and detrimental to good administration
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly by deciding on paper without giving notice of refusal of oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's 44.5 month delay in filing was inordinate and inexcusable, no good reason was shown to extend time, the delay is detrimental to good administration (particularly given the availability of the USM as the appropriate primary forum), and therefore leave is refused without consideration of the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Order nisi that the applicant pays the Director of Immigration's costs of the application