48 lines
2.9 KiB
YAML
48 lines
2.9 KiB
YAML
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.
|