NURWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

NURWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board correctly exercised s.37ZT to refuse late filing in absence of reasons or evidence; the risk was found localized with available state protection and feasible internal relocation, so no prospect of success on BOR2/BOR3/torture/persecution grounds.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1919
Parties
Applicant: Nurwati; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL617/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights, Article 2 Hong Kong Bill of Rights, Internal Relocation, Delay and Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 Hong Kong Bill of Rights +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nurwati

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 Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in refusing to allow late filing of appeal under s.37ZT
  3. 3 Whether the Director/Board erred in assessing torture/BOR3/persecution claims

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board correctly exercised s.37ZT to refuse late filing in absence of reasons or evidence; the risk was found localized with available state protection and feasible internal relocation, so no prospect of success on BOR2/BOR3/torture/persecution grounds.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 12 August 2020)