RAM ISHVER DASS v. KAY RANSOME, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

RAM ISHVER DASS v. KAY RANSOME, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board lawfully and properly exercised its statutory discretion under ss.37ZS and 37ZT to refuse late filing: the statutory process requires a preliminary decision without hearing; the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars or documentary evidence to show special circumstances; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness on the face of the Board’s decision and therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2188
Parties
Applicant: Ram Ishver Dass; Putative Respondent (torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office): Kay Ransome, ESQ.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL36/2018
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 Risk, Late Filing of Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Late Filing of Appeal Procedural Fairness +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Ishver Dass

Applicant

Kay Ransome, ESQ.

Putative Respondent (torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office)

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in refusing to allow late filing of the notice of appeal under s37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Board’s procedure denying an oral hearing for the preliminary decision was unlawful or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided sufficient reasons and evidence to satisfy the statutory test of 'special circumstances' to justify late filing

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board lawfully and properly exercised its statutory discretion under ss.37ZS and 37ZT to refuse late filing: the statutory process requires a preliminary decision without hearing; the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars or documentary evidence to show special circumstances; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness on the face of the Board’s decision and therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.