SARR YAHYA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SARR YAHYA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than eight months late, gave no satisfactory reason for the delay and advanced no reasonably arguable ground of review; the Board and Director had not committed any identifiable error of law or procedural unfairness in their credibility and risk assessments, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1679
Parties
Applicant: Sarr Yahya; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL513/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 and Article 3, Credibility Findings, Extension of Time Under Order 53 R4(1), Judicial Review Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 and Article 3 Credibility Findings +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarr Yahya

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for a leave application under Order 53 r4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review raised any reasonably arguable point of law or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether findings of credibility and risk by the Director and Torture Claims Appeal Board were susceptible to judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than eight months late, gave no satisfactory reason for the delay and advanced no reasonably arguable ground of review; the Board and Director had not committed any identifiable error of law or procedural unfairness in their credibility and risk assessments, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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