DAINI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DAINI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicants were inordinate and unjustifiably delayed (approximately 11 months), provided no satisfactory explanation or corroboration for delay, and their intended grounds lacked any reasonably arguable merit; the Board and Director had given detailed reasons, conducted an oral hearing, and there was no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 636
Parties
1st Applicant: Daini; 2nd Applicant: Dost Zeeshan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL148/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application; Application for Extension of Time Considered and Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave dismissed; extension of time refused; amendment to add child as second applicant granted
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Extension of Time, Child Specific Claims
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp HKBOR Articles 2 and 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daini

1st Applicant

Dost Zeeshan

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; Application for Extension of Time Considered and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review grounds disclose a reasonably arguable case
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was observed (oral hearing, reasons, inquiry into COI)

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicants were inordinate and unjustifiably delayed (approximately 11 months), provided no satisfactory explanation or corroboration for delay, and their intended grounds lacked any reasonably arguable merit; the Board and Director had given detailed reasons, conducted an oral hearing, and there was no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Application for leave dismissed; extension of time refused; amendment to add child as second applicant granted

Orders

  • Leave to amend Form 86 to include the 1st Applicant’s son, Dost Zeeshan, as 2nd Applicant granted
  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused