ROOP BASANT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ROOP BASANT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was excessively and unjustifiably delayed (about 17 months against the Board decision and longer against the Director’s decisions), there were no credible reasons to extend time, and the intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable merits — the Director’s risk assessments and the Board’s refusal to allow late filing were not shown to be legally flawed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 51
Parties
Applicant: Roop Basant; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 January 2021
Case Number
HCAL828/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; time not extended
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, BOR 2/bor 3 Assessment, Persecution Risk, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk BOR 2/bor 3 Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roop Basant

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to apply for judicial review was made within time or whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in refusing to accept late filing of the notice of appeal (special circumstances test)
  3. 3 Whether the Director’s decisions rejecting non-refoulement claims were vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was excessively and unjustifiably delayed (about 17 months against the Board decision and longer against the Director’s decisions), there were no credible reasons to extend time, and the intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable merits — the Director’s risk assessments and the Board’s refusal to allow late filing were not shown to be legally flawed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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