ALI SAIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI SAIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds of legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's risk assessment and failed to establish special circumstances or a satisfactory explanation for an inordinate delay of over two years in filing his notice of appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2229
Parties
Applicant: Ali Saif; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Case Number
HCAL655/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Procedural Fairness, Late Filing of Appeal, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Saif

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in assessing the Applicant's non-refoulement claim under torture and HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 and Article 33 Refugee Convention
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in refusing to allow the late filing of the Applicant's notice of appeal under s37ZT(2) of the Immigration Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness or failure to apply the Wednesbury standard occurred

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds of legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's risk assessment and failed to establish special circumstances or a satisfactory explanation for an inordinate delay of over two years in filing his notice of appeal such that the Board erred in refusing late filing under s37ZT(2).

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.