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

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

The application for leave was out of time and the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time (no evidence of hospitalisation or incapacity); on the merits the Board's decision was not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave was refused and the application dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 978
Parties
Applicant: Tri-Astuti; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 April 2019
Case Number
HCAL597/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Extension of Time Refused; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave for Judicial Review, Prohibition of Torture, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Language Barrier in Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Non Refoulement/asylum Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave for Judicial Review Prohibition of Torture +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tri-Astuti

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was made within time or there was good reason to extend time
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision contained errors of law or was Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was out of time and the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time (no evidence of hospitalisation or incapacity); on the merits the Board's decision was not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision dated 1 December 2017 refused
  • Application for leave for judicial review dismissed