ASHRAF NAIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ASHRAF NAIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The application to extend time was refused because the delay (over 15 months) was excessive with no explanation and, on the merits, the applicant identified no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; accordingly there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3233
Parties
Applicant: Ashraf Naim; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL1323/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decided; Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Delay/extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee/non Refoulement Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk +6 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashraf Naim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decided; Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for a late leave application
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has an arguable ground of error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board/Director decisions
  3. 3 Whether the Board/Director correctly assessed non-refoulement risk including torture/BOR2/BOR3 and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

The application to extend time was refused because the delay (over 15 months) was excessive with no explanation and, on the merits, the applicant identified no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; accordingly there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the Applicant’s late Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review of the Board decisions dated 24 November 2016 and 12 March 2020 dismissed