PHAM THI VAN ANH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM THI VAN ANH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused extension of time because the applicants offered no adequate explanation for an excessive eight‑month delay and their intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable ground: the Director and the Board lawfully found the risk was private and localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention; therefore leave was refused and the applications dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2182
Parties
Applicant: Pham Thi Van Anh; Applicant (represented): Hoang Chan Thanh; Applicant (represented): Hoang Phuong Thao; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1029/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Application for Leave and Application for Extension of Time (refused); Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture and Article 3 HKBOR, Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Public Law Non‑refoulement Torture and Article 3 HKBOR Extension of Time for 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Thi Van Anh

Applicant

Hoang Chan Thanh

Applicant (represented)

Hoang Phuong Thao

Applicant (represented)

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Application for Leave and Application for Extension of Time (refused); Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing application for leave to apply for judicial review after an eight‑month delay
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has a reasonably arguable basis/merits
  3. 3 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board committed legal error or procedural unfairness in rejecting non‑refoulement claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused extension of time because the applicants offered no adequate explanation for an excessive eight‑month delay and their intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable ground: the Director and the Board lawfully found the risk was private and localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention; therefore leave was refused and the applications dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed