RE BAPPY SHAHAJADA MURAD

RE BAPPY SHAHAJADA MURAD

Although the delay was short, the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal because the Board expressly rejected his evidence and found no state involvement; therefore extension of time to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1514
Parties
Applicant: Bappy Shahajada Murad; Respondent / Interested Party: Director of Immigration; Respondent / Decision Maker: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL1416/2018
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Extension of Time in Chambers; Reasons for Decision Issued
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement Claim, Procedural Fairness, Prospects of Appeal
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law (non Refoulement/torture) Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Claim Procedural Fairness Prospects of Appeal

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

Parties

Bappy Shahajada Murad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Respondent / Interested Party

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Respondent / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Extension of Time in Chambers; Reasons for Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown a reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal
  3. 3 Whether the delay is excusable and its length is short

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay was short, the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal because the Board expressly rejected his evidence and found no state involvement; therefore extension of time to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dated 27 March 2019 for extension of time to appeal is dismissed