ABID AKRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ABID AKRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay (over 15 months) was serious and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board found the claim unsubstantiated and the applicant refused to give evidence, leading the Board to reject his credibility; on that basis the court exercised its discretion and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2250
Parties
Applicant: Abid Akram; 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 September 2023
Case Number
HCAL238/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Board Decision; Prior Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (application Determined on Papers)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal, Credibility Findings, Refusal to Give Evidence, Non Refoulement Claim, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Asylum/non Refoulement Procedural Law Extension of Time Appeal Credibility Findings +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abid Akram

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Board Decision; Prior Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (application Determined on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Weight to be given to applicant's refusal to give evidence and credibility findings by the Board

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay (over 15 months) was serious and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board found the claim unsubstantiated and the applicant refused to give evidence, leading the Board to reject his credibility; on that basis the court exercised its discretion and refused the extension.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file the notice of appeal refused
  • Application dismissed