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

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

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the application was almost three years late, the applicant gave no explanation for the delay or specific grounds, and there was no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings which were within its fact-finding discretion and showed no error of law or procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5410
Parties
Applicant: Musrifah; 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
24 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL148/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp Risk, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Musrifah

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 / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on judicial review of the Board's Decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing risk of harm/non-refoulement

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the application was almost three years late, the applicant gave no explanation for the delay or specific grounds, and there was no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings which were within its fact-finding discretion and showed no error of law or procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The extension of time for the application for judicial review is refused.
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.