TRAN VAN TU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

TRAN VAN TU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay was short (about one week) but the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings were unchallenged and it reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation were viable, so granting extension...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1863
Parties
Applicant: Tran Van Tu; 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
1 August 2023
Case Number
HCAL289/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time in Chambers
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Refoulement Risk
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Extension of Time Judicial Review Leave Credibility Findings +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tran Van Tu

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the Torture Claims Appeal Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Board's findings on credibility and availability of state protection/internal relocation are challengeable

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay was short (about one week) but the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings were unchallenged and it reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation were viable, so granting extension would allow pursuit of a hopeless appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time to file the notice of appeal refused
  • Summons dismissed