SUPIATI V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SUPIATI V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the delay (1 year 8 months) was inordinate, the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the delay (failed to notify change of address), and the proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable; there was no demonstrated legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions and no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2421
Parties
Applicant: Supiati; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL22/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Extension of Time Sought; Leave Refused and Application Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time for filing the leave application refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life Extension of Time Procedural Fairness +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supiati

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Extension of Time Sought; Leave Refused and Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for a leave application under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed judicial review grounds are arguable (procedural impropriety, failure to consider COI, failure to give reasons, error in law)
  3. 3 Whether the Board/Director erred in assessing BOR 3/BOR 2 and torture/CIDTP risks

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the delay (1 year 8 months) was inordinate, the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the delay (failed to notify change of address), and the proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable; there was no demonstrated legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions and no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time refused for the application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision dated 2 February 2017
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed