HARYANTI AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

HARYANTI AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Application refused because it was filed substantially out of time with no satisfactory explanation and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's Decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonableness and its factual findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation fall squarely within the Board's province.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2490
Parties
1st Applicant: Haryanti; 2nd Applicant: Tarique Nesha Wijayanti; 3rd Applicant: Tarique Soffia Wijayanti; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL1464/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Decision) / Decision on Leave Application (determined on Documents)
Outcome
Leave to amend Form 86 granted; extension of time to apply for leave refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time/delay, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Minor Applicants
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time/delay +5 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haryanti

1st Applicant

Tarique Nesha Wijayanti

2nd Applicant

Tarique Soffia Wijayanti

3rd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Decision) / Decision on Leave Application (determined on Documents)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted out of time
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or breached procedural fairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether findings of fact by the Board are susceptible to judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Application refused because it was filed substantially out of time with no satisfactory explanation and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's Decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonableness and its factual findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation fall squarely within the Board's province.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend Form 86 granted; extension of time to apply for leave refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to amend the notice of application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (Form 86) granted
  • Extension of time to apply for leave to apply for Judicial Review refused