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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were refused because the Board's Decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's grounds were inconsistent with the Board's findings and there was no reasonable chance of success, so no good reason to extend time.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 637
Parties
Applicant: Vu Van Hung; 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
12 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1262/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave and Extension of Time (on Papers)
Outcome
Leave refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Delay/extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Asylum Delay/extension of Time Judicial Review Leave +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vu Van Hung

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave and Extension of Time (on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board’s decision contained errors of law, procedural unfairness or was irrational/Wednesbury-unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of serious harm, torture, CIDTP or violation of right to life on refoulement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were refused because the Board's Decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's grounds were inconsistent with the Board's findings and there was no reasonable chance of success, so no good reason to extend time.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Extension of time to apply for leave refused.