SRI RAHAYU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SRI RAHAYU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without explanation and the proposed challenge lacked any arguable public law grounds; the Board's decision was supported by factual findings and showed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5311
Parties
Applicant: Sri Rahayu; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL1042/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application; Application for Extension of Time Refused; Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Form 86 amended to name the Director of Immigration and the Board's Decision dated 23 January 2020; extension of time to file Form 86 refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time/delay, Merits of Challenge, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Anxious Scrutiny
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Administrative Law Extension of Time/delay Merits of Challenge Standard of Review +3 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Rahayu

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application; Application for Extension of Time Refused; Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for a leave application filed out of time
  2. 2 Whether the Board's factual findings were amenable to judicial review absent error of law
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of ill-treatment from third parties or family on return to Indonesia

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without explanation and the proposed challenge lacked any arguable public law grounds; the Board's decision was supported by factual findings and showed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting review.

Court Disposition

Form 86 amended to name the Director of Immigration and the Board's Decision dated 23 January 2020; extension of time to file Form 86 refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Amend the Applicant's Form 86 to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party and to identify the Board's Decision dated 23 January 2020 as the decision sought to be reviewed
  • Refuse extension of time to file Form 86