THAPA PUNAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2023] HKCFI 1281
Parties: Applicant: Thapa Punam; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 15 May 2023
Case Number: HCAL303/2021
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time Refused; Leave Application Dismissed
Outcome: Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics: Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (torture/cruel Treatment), Withdrawal of Appeal, Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language: en

Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk +7 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Thapa Punam

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time Refused; Leave Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

1 Whether to extend time for filing application for leave to apply for judicial review
2 Whether the intended judicial review has any reasonably arguable grounds
3 Whether the Board validly accepted the applicant's withdrawal of her appeal and thereby disposed of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay exceeded one year with no adequate explanation and the intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable ground: the Director's risk assessment and the Board's acceptance of a voluntary withdrawal were lawful, involved no legal error or procedural unfairness, and judicial review is not a vehicle to re‑weigh primary findings of fact on risk absent identifiable legal error; accordingly leave was dismissed.

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

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.