AHMED JAMIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMED JAMIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was almost three months out of time without explanation, his intended challenge disclosed no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and findings as to low risk, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation were entitled to deference under anxious scrutiny and thus no prospect of success existed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1409
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Jamil; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL1500/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Extension of time for leave refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Asylum Screening
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Internal Relocation +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Jamil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Extension of time under Order 53 r 4(1) High Court Ordinance Cap 4
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review had any realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Availability of state/police protection

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was almost three months out of time without explanation, his intended challenge disclosed no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and findings as to low risk, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation were entitled to deference under anxious scrutiny and thus no prospect of success existed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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