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

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

The application for leave was dismissed because the delay (seven to nine months) was excessive and unexplained, there were no reasonably arguable grounds identified for judicial review (no legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions), and the Board's adverse credibility findings and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1681
Parties
Applicant: Supriatik; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL538/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Leave Refused (extension of Time Refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supriatik

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Leave Refused (extension of Time Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a reasonably arguable non-refoulement/torture or BOR risk
  3. 3 Whether there was any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the delay (seven to nine months) was excessive and unexplained, there were no reasonably arguable grounds identified for judicial review (no legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions), and the Board's adverse credibility findings and finding of viable internal relocation justified refusal of non-refoulement; accordingly time was not extended and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed