PHUNG THI SEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

PHUNG THI SEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused to extend time because the applicant's delay of four months and three weeks was substantial and unexplained, and refused leave because there was no reasonably arguable legal ground identified: the Director and the Board applied lawful principles, made credibility findings and relied on state protection and feasible internal relocation; therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1706
Parties
Applicant: Phung Thi Sen; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2021
Case Number
HCAL1314/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused and Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Leave to amend refused; extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; request to include son refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture (part Viic), Article 3 HKBOR, Extension of Time/delay, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture (part Viic) Article 3 HKBOR Extension of Time/delay +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phung Thi Sen

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused and Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for filing a leave application under Order 53 r4(1) of the High Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has an arguable ground of judicial review (error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness) in the Board's/Director's decisions
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's son may be added as a party to the leave application

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time because the applicant's delay of four months and three weeks was substantial and unexplained, and refused leave because there was no reasonably arguable legal ground identified: the Director and the Board applied lawful principles, made credibility findings and relied on state protection and feasible internal relocation; therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend refused; extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; request to include son refused.

Orders

  • Leave to amend the notice of application refused
  • Extension of time for the leave application refused