SA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

SA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant showed inordinate delay (22 months) without good reason and the claim was premature and detrimental to good administration given ongoing USM screening by the primary decisionmaker; accordingly the court refused to consider the merits.

Citation
SA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: SA; 1st Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; 2nd Putative Respondent: THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION; 3rd Putative Respondent: THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 September 2015
Case Number
HCAL77/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture (cat), Credibility Assessment, State Acquiescence, Country Information (coi), Internal Relocation, USM Screening, Detriment to Good Administration
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law International Law (convention Against Torture) Extension of Time Judicial Review Leave Non Refoulement +7 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

1st Putative Respondent

THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

2nd Putative Respondent

THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

3rd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for applying for judicial review after 22 months delay
  2. 2 Whether delay caused by legal aid process constitutes good reason to extend time
  3. 3 Whether granting leave would be detrimental to good administration given ongoing USM screening

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant showed inordinate delay (22 months) without good reason and the claim was premature and detrimental to good administration given ongoing USM screening by the primary decisionmaker; accordingly the court refused to consider the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused.