CEPI KURNIAWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CEPI KURNIAWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Extension of time refused because the delay (3 months and 3 weeks) was substantial and inordinate, the applicant failed to provide credible or corroborated reasons for the delay, and he failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success by providing draft grounds or identifying errors in the earlier decision,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1413
Parties
Applicant: CEPI Kurniawan; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 June 2023
Case Number
HCAL548/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Chamber Application/direction Hearing on Summons for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Non Refoulement, Futility of Hopeless Appeals
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Asylum/non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Non Refoulement +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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CEPI Kurniawan

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Chamber Application/direction Hearing on Summons for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a good reason for the delay
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the delay (3 months and 3 weeks) was substantial and inordinate, the applicant failed to provide credible or corroborated reasons for the delay, and he failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success by providing draft grounds or identifying errors in the earlier decision, making extension futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal refused
  • Summons dismissed