SALIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

SALIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board lawfully exercised its discretion under section 37ZT(2) to refuse the late filing given the serious and unexplained delay, adverse credibility findings, absence of evidence of state complicity, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and no realistic prospect of success on BOR 2 or BOR 3 grounds; there was no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1199
Parties
Applicant: Salim; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1470/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Limitation/late Filing, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +5 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in refusing to allow late filing of notice of appeal under section 37ZT(2)
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk engaging non-refoulement protections including torture/Article 3 HKBOR and right to life (Article 2 HKBOR)
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board applied lawful principles, observed procedural fairness and gave adequate reasons

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board lawfully exercised its discretion under section 37ZT(2) to refuse the late filing given the serious and unexplained delay, adverse credibility findings, absence of evidence of state complicity, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and no realistic prospect of success on BOR 2 or BOR 3 grounds; there was no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.