IIN-HANSIYAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

IIN-HANSIYAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Extension of time was refused because the applicants' eight‑week delay was substantial, they failed to provide a valid reason (ignorance not acceptable), they did not identify any errors or present any arguable grounds indicating a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore the factors relevant to granting an extension weighed decisively against them.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1755
Parties
1st Applicant: IIN-HANSIYAH; 2nd Applicant: ALI MIKHAYLA RIZKYA MALIK; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2024
Case Number
HCAL1819/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (extension of Time to Appeal) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Delay and Excuses, Prospect of Success, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Asylum and Non‑refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Delay and Excuses Prospect of Success Procedural Fairness

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IIN-HANSIYAH

1st Applicant

ALI MIKHAYLA RIZKYA MALIK

2nd Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (extension of Time to Appeal) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a good and valid reason for delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicants' eight‑week delay was substantial, they failed to provide a valid reason (ignorance not acceptable), they did not identify any errors or present any arguable grounds indicating a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore the factors relevant to granting an extension weighed decisively against them.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused
  • Summons dismissed