ARSHAD MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ARSHAD MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The applicant's five‑day delay lacked a reasonable explanation (ignorance of the law is no excuse) and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success because the BOR 2 ground was not pleaded or relevant; accordingly, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1990
Parties
Applicant: Arshad Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL1661/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension Application (interlocutory Appeal)
Outcome
Extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Non‑refoulement, BOR 2, Procedural Time Limits
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refoulement/torture Claims Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Non‑refoulement BOR 2 Procedural Time Limits

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arshad Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension Application (interlocutory Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal an interlocutory order
  2. 2 Whether applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has any real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's five‑day delay lacked a reasonable explanation (ignorance of the law is no excuse) and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success because the BOR 2 ground was not pleaded or relevant; accordingly, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal refused
  • Applicant's summons dated 5 July 2019 dismissed