AWAIS IBRAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

AWAIS IBRAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide any valid explanation for about two months' delay and failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on appeal; authorities require consideration of delay, reasons, prospects and prejudice and do not permit extension for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 333
Parties
Applicant: Awais Ibrar; 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
16 February 2023
Case Number
HCAL136/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave) and Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Following Dismissal of Leave Application Upon Applicant's Withdrawal
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Appeal Prospects
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Appeal Prospects

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Awais Ibrar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave) and Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Following Dismissal of Leave Application Upon Applicant's Withdrawal

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided valid reasons for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide any valid explanation for about two months' delay and failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on appeal; authorities require consideration of delay, reasons, prospects and prejudice and do not permit extension for hopeless appeals.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time to appeal.
  • Dismiss the application.