SHRESTHA BIMALA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SHRESTHA BIMALA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; factual findings that risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no merit or good reason for delay were open to the primary decision‑makers and not subject to disturbance on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2333
Parties
Applicant: Shrestha Bimala; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL895/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage Application Considered (documents and Oral Submissions); Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Torture, Right to Life (bor Article 2), Prohibition of Torture/cruel Treatment (bor Article 3), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave for Judicial Review, Delay and Extension of Time for Appeals
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Law Non Refoulement Law Torture Right to Life (bor Article 2) +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shrestha Bimala

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage Application Considered (documents and Oral Submissions); Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in refusing late filing of the Applicant's appeal
  3. 3 Whether BOR 2 or BOR 3 is engaged on the facts

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; factual findings that risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no merit or good reason for delay were open to the primary decision‑makers and not subject to disturbance on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.