plaintiff:
- Valles Julie Ann Caranto
defendant:
- 'Torture Claims Appeal Board/

  Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office'
- Director of Immigration
jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
jurisdiction_name: Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
case_location:
- 香港特別行政區
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
case_reason: >-
  Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 March 2019 of the Torture
  Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office refusing to allow her late filing.
case_object:
- leave to apply for judicial review
judgment_result:
- charge: The Board's decision to refuse to extend time for the applicant to file her notice of appeal
    (liability issue)
  result: Disallowed. The Court found no merit in the application as the applicant had failed to show
    any realistic prospect of success and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness.
- charge: The Board's decision on extending time for filing notice of appeal (quantum issue)
  result: Disallowed. The Court found that the Board did not err in refusing to extend the time as the
    applicant had failed to keep the Director and the Board updated with her address or telephone number.
- charge: The Board's decision on other risks, particularly BOR 3 risk (quantum issue)
  result: Disallowed. The Court found that there was no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Second Decision
    as the applicant had failed in her claim on the BOR 3 risk.
- charge: The applicant's application for judicial review of the Board’s Second Decision (liability issue)
  result: Disallowed. The Court refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review, finding no error
    of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision and that the findings were not open to challenge.
judgment_summary: >-
  In HCAL779/2019, Valles Julie Ann Caranto applied for leave to judicially review the Torture Claims
  Appeal Board's decision refusing her late filing of an appeal. The Court found no merit in her application
  as she failed to show a realistic prospect of success and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness.
  Key precedents cited included Karamjit Singh [2018] HKCA 460 §14, emphasizing the duty to provide effective
  communication details.
involved_entities:
- entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung
  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
- entity_name: Valles Julie Ann Caranto
  reason: Applicant in the case.
- entity_name: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
  reason: Respondent in the case, responsible for making decisions regarding non-refoulement claims and
    torture claims appeals.
- entity_name: Director of Immigration
  reason: Putative interested party in the case, management authority related to immigration matters.