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

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

Extension of time for the leave applications was refused and leave was denied because the applicants offered no good reason for the delays, the claims lacked merit on their facts and law (tribunal credibility findings were justified and there was adequate State protection and viable relocation), and there was no legal or procedural error warranting interference.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 610
Parties
Applicant: Sumiyati; Applicant: Sumiyati Natasha Salsabila Nadhifa; 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
11 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL935/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Applications
Outcome
Extension of time refused; applications for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Domestic Violence, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time State Protection +4 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumiyati

Applicant

Sumiyati Natasha Salsabila Nadhifa

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 (non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend time for applications for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the non-refoulement claims
  3. 3 Whether State protection and internal relocation in Indonesia defeated the non-refoulement claims

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time for the leave applications was refused and leave was denied because the applicants offered no good reason for the delays, the claims lacked merit on their facts and law (tribunal credibility findings were justified and there was adequate State protection and viable relocation), and there was no legal or procedural error warranting interference.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the respective applications for leave to apply for Judicial Review in HCAL 935/2018 and HCAL 618/2020 is refused.
  • The respective applications for leave to apply for Judicial Review in HCAL 935/2018 and HCAL 618/2020 are dismissed.