BUI DUC HIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

BUI DUC HIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Extension of time was refused because the two-month delay was substantial, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory or corroborated explanation for the delay, and he failed to identify any error or put forward any arguable grounds for appeal so there was no prospect of success; granting extension would be futile.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2264
Parties
Applicant: Bui Duc Hien; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 September 2023
Case Number
HCAL788/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (extension of Time to Appeal Following Refusal of Leave) / Chambers Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement Claim, Procedural Fairness, Prospect of Success
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Claim Procedural Fairness +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Duc Hien

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (extension of Time to Appeal Following Refusal of Leave) / Chambers Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a good reason and corroboration for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the two-month delay was substantial, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory or corroborated explanation for the delay, and he failed to identify any error or put forward any arguable grounds for appeal so there was no prospect of success; granting extension would be futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused
  • Summons dismissed