TAMANG SAMIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

TAMANG SAMIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Refuse extension of time and dismiss leave application because the applicant filed five months late, offered no specific grounds in support, failed to show any realistic prospect of success on judicial review of the Board’s factual findings (low risk, available state protection, viable internal relocation), and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 268
Parties
Applicant: Tamang Samir; 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
6 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL2062/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave; Application for Extension of Time Refused; Final Determination
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, CIDTP, Delay/extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, Standard of Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement CIDTP Delay/extension of Time +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamang Samir

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave; Application for Extension of Time Refused; Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing leave application given approx. five months delay
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for Board decisions (supervisory role; fact-finding deference)

Ratio Decidendi

Refuse extension of time and dismiss leave application because the applicant filed five months late, offered no specific grounds in support, failed to show any realistic prospect of success on judicial review of the Board’s factual findings (low risk, available state protection, viable internal relocation), and the Court will not supplant the Board’s fact-finding in supervisory review.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 12 March 2024.
  • Dismiss the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review.