JAVED ASAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

JAVED ASAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Although the delay was short and the applicant explained late receipt, the principal responsibility for the late service lay with the applicant for failing to notify his transfer of detention, he advanced no grounds for an appeal and thus no prospect of success, and his stated intention was to buy time rather than genuinely to challenge the Decision; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the Summons.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1882
Parties
Applicant: Javed Asad; 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
3 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL1468/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal After Dismissal of Leave
Outcome
Summons dismissed; no extension of time to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time to Appeal, Judicial Review Leave, Service of Court Documents, Detention
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Judicial Review Leave Service of Court Documents +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Javed Asad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal After Dismissal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether delay was excusable and who was at fault
  3. 3 Whether there are arguable grounds/prospects of success in the intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay was short and the applicant explained late receipt, the principal responsibility for the late service lay with the applicant for failing to notify his transfer of detention, he advanced no grounds for an appeal and thus no prospect of success, and his stated intention was to buy time rather than genuinely to challenge the Decision; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the Summons.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; no extension of time to appeal granted

Orders

  • Summons dismissed