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

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

Leave was refused because the application was out of time with no good reason to extend time and because the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were lawful, rational and not procedurally unfair; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and therefore no basis for leave.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 639
Parties
Applicant: Pham Thi Thuy; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1263/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused; Application Dealt With on Paper
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; time to apply not extended; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life, Persecution, Judicial Review Leave, Delay/extension of Time, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation/state Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life Persecution +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 7 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Thi Thuy

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused; Application Dealt With on Paper

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether time should be extended for a late leave application
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the applicant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the application was out of time with no good reason to extend time and because the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were lawful, rational and not procedurally unfair; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and therefore no basis for leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; time to apply not extended; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed; no extension of time granted.