AHMED ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMED ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was over nine months out of time with no satisfactory explanation, and his intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions (which lawfully found threats were private, state protection and internal relocation available); accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1171
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Arif; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1075/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Considered on Papers; Extension of Time Refused and Application Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +2 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Arif

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Considered on Papers; Extension of Time Refused and Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Board/Director erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting non-refoulement claim (Torture risk, BOR Article 3 and Article 2, persecution/Article 33 Refugee Convention)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had an arguable/meritorious case to justify extension and leave

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was over nine months out of time with no satisfactory explanation, and his intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions (which lawfully found threats were private, state protection and internal relocation available); accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed