GULZAR MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

GULZAR MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

The application to extend time was refused because the applicant's delay of over eight months was unreasonable, his explanations were untenable in light of the record (including his demonstrated English proficiency), and he failed to demonstrate any prospect of success on appeal; accordingly extension would serve no meaningful purpose.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 649
Parties
Applicant: Gulzar Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL220/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review; Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Appeal Following Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for leave to lodge appeal out of time refused; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Appeal Prospects, Delay and Excuse
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Appeal Prospects +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulzar Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review; Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Appeal Following Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to lodge an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's explanation for delay is acceptable
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has any prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application to extend time was refused because the applicant's delay of over eight months was unreasonable, his explanations were untenable in light of the record (including his demonstrated English proficiency), and he failed to demonstrate any prospect of success on appeal; accordingly extension would serve no meaningful purpose.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to lodge appeal out of time refused; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to lodge appeal out of time refused and summons dismissed