SANDEEP v. BETTY KWAN (CHAIRLADY, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD)

SANDEEP v. BETTY KWAN (CHAIRLADY, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD)

Extension of time was refused because the delay was lengthy and unexplained given solicitors were assigned within the limitation period and the applicant could have applied earlier, and because the substantive application lacked merits; consequentially leave for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's adverse credibility and fact findings and conclusions on lack of state acquiescence and lack of real risk of torture were open to her on the evidence and the applicant had not shown a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
SANDEEP v. BETTY KWAN (CHAIRLADY, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD)
Parties
Applicant: SANDEEP; Putative Respondent (chairlady, Torture Claims Appeal Board): BETTY KWAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 February 2017
Case Number
HCAL242/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application Challenging Adjudicator and Director Decisions Under Unified Screening Mechanism (non Refoulement/torture) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and for Extension of Time; Application Refused at First Instance
Outcome
Application for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Extension of Time, Leave for Judicial Review, State Acquiescence, Procedural Delay
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Extension of Time Leave for Judicial Review +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SANDEEP

Applicant

BETTY KWAN

Putative Respondent (chairlady, Torture Claims Appeal Board)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application Challenging Adjudicator and Director Decisions Under Unified Screening Mechanism (non Refoulement/torture) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and for Extension of Time; Application Refused at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether there is an arguable and realistically tenable case warranting leave for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or fact in finding no real risk of torture or prohibited treatment if the applicant were returned

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the delay was lengthy and unexplained given solicitors were assigned within the limitation period and the applicant could have applied earlier, and because the substantive application lacked merits; consequentially leave for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's adverse credibility and fact findings and conclusions on lack of state acquiescence and lack of real risk of torture were open to her on the evidence and the applicant had not shown a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused