ISKANDAR ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ISKANDAR ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Refusal of extension of time was justified because the applicant was two days late, provided no explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's unsubstantiated findings, therefore the application is dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1192
Parties
Applicant: Iskandar Arif; 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
11 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL1081/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed; extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Delay, Credibility Findings, Appeal Prospects
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Procedural Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Extension of Time +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iskandar Arif

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time for appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided satisfactory reasons for delay

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of extension of time was justified because the applicant was two days late, provided no explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's unsubstantiated findings, therefore the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; extension of time refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to file notice of appeal refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed