ALI MAMOON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ALI MAMOON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and, critically, has shown no prospect of success in the intended appeal as no grounds were identified; absence of merit is decisive against granting indulgence.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2130
Parties
Applicant: Ali Mamoon; 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
24 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL523/2021
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application Heard on 4 March 2026; Decision Delivered 24 April 2026
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Appeal, Prospect of Success
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Procedural Law Extension of Time Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Mamoon

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application Heard on 4 March 2026; Decision Delivered 24 April 2026

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and, critically, has shown no prospect of success in the intended appeal as no grounds were identified; absence of merit is decisive against granting indulgence.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal refused
  • Application dismissed