RAMIREZ BELTRAN CLAUDIA LORENA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RAMIREZ BELTRAN CLAUDIA LORENA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was dismissed because it was about 14 months late beyond the three-month limit, the Applicant failed to demonstrate good reason to extend time, the delay was undue and substantial with potential prejudice to respondents, the Applicant's procedural complaints lacked merit, and the Adjudicator's decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2022
Parties
Applicant: Ramirez Beltran Claudia Lorena; 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
14 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL515/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Determination of Extension of Time and Dismissal of Leave Application
Outcome
Extension of time for application for leave refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Interpretation and Assistance, Legal Representation, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Convention Extension of Time Procedural Fairness +6 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramirez Beltran Claudia Lorena

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Determination of Extension of Time and Dismissal of Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend the three-month time limit for leave under Order 53
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator fettered discretion or acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant was prejudiced by late service of the appeal bundle or lack of legal representation/interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because it was about 14 months late beyond the three-month limit, the Applicant failed to demonstrate good reason to extend time, the delay was undue and substantial with potential prejudice to respondents, the Applicant's procedural complaints lacked merit, and the Adjudicator's decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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