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

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

Application for extension of time and leave was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessments were not shown to be legally flawed, there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness, and therefore no reasonable prospect of success to justify extending time or granting leave.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2948
Parties
Applicant: Abdul Alim; 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
18 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL767/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (extension of Time Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Credibility Findings, Extension of Time/limitation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee/asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Judicial Review +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Alim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (extension of Time Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's credibility findings undermine any prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Application for extension of time and leave was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessments were not shown to be legally flawed, there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness, and therefore no reasonable prospect of success to justify extending time or granting leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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