CORDOVAL MYRNA BENIASEN AND ANOTHER v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

CORDOVAL MYRNA BENIASEN AND ANOTHER v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for extension of time was refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicants delayed over four months without satisfactory explanation, their intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error against the Director or Board, the Board's and Director's factual and risk assessments were lawful and reasonable, and internal relocation in the Philippines was a viable alternative negating non-refoulement protection.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1633
Parties
1st Applicant: Cordoval Myrna Beniasen; 2nd Applicant: Cordoval Nadeeshan Crystal; Putative Respondent: Immigration Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL265/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, HKBOR Article 3, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, Risk Assessment
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim HKBOR Article 3 Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cordoval Myrna Beniasen

1st Applicant

Cordoval Nadeeshan Crystal

2nd Applicant

Immigration Department

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has any arguable merit or identifiable legal error
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or procedurally in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/refugee claims

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicants delayed over four months without satisfactory explanation, their intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error against the Director or Board, the Board's and Director's factual and risk assessments were lawful and reasonable, and internal relocation in the Philippines was a viable alternative negating non-refoulement protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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