AZAM SHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AZAM SHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the notice was filed late without any explanation or application for extension, the delay was significant, and the substantive application was not reasonably arguable on its merits as the TCAB decision was lawful, afforded procedural fairness and was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2348
Parties
Applicant: Azam Sher; 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
2 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL1704/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Decision (notification Under Order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Refused leave to apply for judicial review
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution, Right to Life, Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution Right to Life +4 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azam Sher

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Decision (notification Under Order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB decision was susceptible to judicial review or was a rehearing of the Director's decisions
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's non-refoulement claims (torture/CIDTP, persecution, Article 2 life risk) were reasonably arguable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the notice was filed late without any explanation or application for extension, the delay was significant, and the substantive application was not reasonably arguable on its merits as the TCAB decision was lawful, afforded procedural fairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Refused leave to apply for judicial review

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused