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

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

Extension of time refused because the delay of about 13 months was substantial, there was no reasonable explanation for the delay (applicant's address had not changed and she did not explain non‑receipt), and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success since the TCAB decision showed no error of law or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2326
Parties
Applicant: Kasirah; 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
4 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL599/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Interlocutory Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Interlocutory Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Delay, Merits Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Procedural Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Interlocutory Appeal Procedural Fairness +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kasirah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonable explanation for failure to comply with the 14‑day appeal time limit
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal had any real prospect of success or raised an error of law or procedural unfairness in the TCAB decision

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the delay of about 13 months was substantial, there was no reasonable explanation for the delay (applicant's address had not changed and she did not explain non‑receipt), and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success since the TCAB decision showed no error of law or procedural unfairness; granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dated 26 August 2019 dismissed