HARDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HARDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Because the applicant was over one year late, provided no satisfactory explanation (decision sent to last known address), refused to substantiate his claim before the Board, and had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings including internal relocation as viable, the court refused to extend time...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1551
Parties
Applicant: Hardeep Singh; 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
20 June 2023
Case Number
HCAL590/2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to File Appeal Against Board Decision / Application Decided in Chambers
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Refugee/non Refoulement Claim, Internal Relocation, Procedural Default
Source Language
en
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Extension of Time Refugee/non Refoulement Claim Internal Relocation Procedural Default

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

Hardeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to File Appeal Against Board Decision / Application Decided in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing an appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant was over one year late, provided no satisfactory explanation (decision sent to last known address), refused to substantiate his claim before the Board, and had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings including internal relocation as viable, the court refused to extend time and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file notice of appeal refused
  • Application dismissed