SUMINEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SUMINEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the delay and her proposed grounds were vague, lacking particulars and not reasonably arguable; the Director's and Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no substantial BOR Article 3 or Article 2 risk were not shown to be legally flawed, so there was no prospect of success to justify extension of time.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 161
Parties
Applicant: Suminem; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL15/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application; Extension of Time Refused and Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Extension of Time, Procedural Impropriety, Internal Relocation, Credibility and Disclosure, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Judicial Review Non Refoulement Refoulement +7 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suminem

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application; Extension of Time Refused and Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend time for a late application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or procedurally in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the alleged threats by a private creditor engage state responsibility or require consideration of extended state acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the delay and her proposed grounds were vague, lacking particulars and not reasonably arguable; the Director's and Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no substantial BOR Article 3 or Article 2 risk were not shown to be legally flawed, so there was no prospect of success to justify extension of time.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • An extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 16 August 2017 is refused and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
  • If the applicant intends to appeal against the order refusing to extend time she must first apply to this court within 14 days by way of summons for leave to appeal.