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

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

The application for extension of time was refused and leave to apply for judicial review was denied because the applicant's delay of over three months was significant, she failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on grounds challenging the Board's credibility findings and risk assessments, and no error of law or procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality was shown in the Board's decision.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3737
Parties
Applicant: Susrianah; 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
28 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL503/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (consideration on Paper)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Judicial Review, Extension of Time, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) Judicial Review +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susrianah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (consideration on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision involved errors of law, procedural unfairness or was Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on proposed grounds (risk of torture, risk to life, persecution)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused and leave to apply for judicial review was denied because the applicant's delay of over three months was significant, she failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on grounds challenging the Board's credibility findings and risk assessments, and no error of law or procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality was shown in the Board's decision.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time to apply for leave refused