NGUYEN CAM DUYEN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

NGUYEN CAM DUYEN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time refused because the applicants were substantially out of time (about 2.5 months), provided no good reason for delay, and their intended application had no reasonably arguable merits; there was no identifiable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, therefore leave was refused and the application dismissed, although amendment to include the daughter was allowed.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2526
Parties
1st Applicant: Nguyen Cam Duyen; 2nd Applicant: Nguyen Diep Anh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL660/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to amend Form 86 to include daughter granted; extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Representation of Minors, Internal Relocation, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Procedural Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Extension of Time +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Cam Duyen

1st Applicant

Nguyen Diep Anh

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for filing leave application under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether there is an arguable ground of judicial review against the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director committed error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicants were substantially out of time (about 2.5 months), provided no good reason for delay, and their intended application had no reasonably arguable merits; there was no identifiable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, therefore leave was refused and the application dismissed, although amendment to include the daughter was allowed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to amend Form 86 to include the 2nd Applicant Nguyen Diep Anh granted
  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused