SUBBA MAMTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SUBBA MAMTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant filed out of time without explanation or good reason for extension, failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board’s detailed credibility‑based decision, and there was no prospect of success on the merits; the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return to India, reinforcing lack of prospect.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2110
Parties
Applicant: Subba Mamta; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL22/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Stage Dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Delay and Extension of Time, Internal Relocation / Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment Delay and Extension of Time +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subba Mamta

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Stage Dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave application was made promptly and within the three‑month limit under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether there is good reason to extend time for filing the leave application
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director committed any legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non‑refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant filed out of time without explanation or good reason for extension, failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board’s detailed credibility‑based decision, and there was no prospect of success on the merits; the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return to India, reinforcing lack of prospect.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.