ARSHAD MAHMOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ARSHAD MAHMOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused to extend time because the applicant's delay of almost one year was substantial and unexplained, the intended judicial review disclosed no arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board, and therefore there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1611
Parties
Applicant: Arshad Mahmood; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2021
Case Number
HCAL526/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Bill of Rights, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Bill of Rights Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arshad Mahmood

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has any arguable grounds (error of law, irrationality, procedural unfairness)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of ill-treatment amounting to non-refoulement given availability of state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time because the applicant's delay of almost one year was substantial and unexplained, the intended judicial review disclosed no arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board, and therefore there was no prospect of success and leave 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