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

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

Extension of time was refused and the application for leave dismissed because the applicant's application was out of time, the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's findings, including its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2213
Parties
Applicant: Suminten; 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
3 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL646/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (application for Leave) / Application for Leave and Extension of Time (extension Refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Procedural Impropriety, Delay/extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Procedural Impropriety Delay/extension of Time +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suminten

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (application for Leave) / Application for Leave and Extension of Time (extension Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision was procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable or affected by error of law
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in credibility assessment and in considering risk, state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused and the application for leave dismissed because the applicant's application was out of time, the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's findings, including its adverse credibility finding and assessment of risk, state protection and internal relocation.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review is refused.
  • The application for Judicial Review is dismissed.