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

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

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was almost six months late without any satisfactory explanation; the applicant advanced no reasonably arguable legal grounds demonstrating error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; the Board's findings that the risk was localized and internal relocation was available were not legally wrong or unfair, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1774
Parties
Applicant: Nurhidayati; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL508/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Internal Relocation +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nurhidayati

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for a leave application under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonably arguable grounds of error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Indonesia negates non-refoulement risk

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was almost six months late without any satisfactory explanation; the applicant advanced no reasonably arguable legal grounds demonstrating error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; the Board's findings that the risk was localized and internal relocation was available were not legally wrong or unfair, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed