PHAM THI HUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM THI HUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant’s delay of over four months was substantial without any explanation, she failed to identify any arguable legal ground or error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions, and the Board’s findings that the risk was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2242
Parties
Applicant: Pham Thi Hue; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL684/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application and Extension of Time Refused (decision on Papers)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Standard of Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Procedural Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Thi Hue

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 and Extension of Time Refused (decision on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time under Order 53 r 4(1) of the High Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has a reasonably arguable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant’s delay of over four months was substantial without any explanation, she failed to identify any arguable legal ground or error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions, and the Board’s findings that the risk was localized and that state protection and internal relocation were available meant there was no prospect of success for judicial review; judicial review is not a rehearing of the factual risk assessment.

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 of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 8 September 2017 refused
  • Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed