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

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

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for a lengthy delay, the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success as grounds were generic and unsupported by particulars or evidence, and granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice and risked opening the floodgates to similar unjustified delays.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2236
Parties
Applicant: Khan Ajmal; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 October 2020
Case Number
HCAL112/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal (extension of Time) / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (summons Dated 17 December 2019)
Outcome
Summons dated 17 December 2019 dismissed; no extension of time granted
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Article 3 Convention Against Torture, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Time Limits
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Procedure Non Refoulement Article 3 Convention Against Torture Extension of Time Leave to Appeal +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Ajmal

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal (extension of Time) / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (summons Dated 17 December 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or was an attempt to re-litigate merits of the underlying non-refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for a lengthy delay, the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success as grounds were generic and unsupported by particulars or evidence, and granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice and risked opening the floodgates to similar unjustified delays.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 17 December 2019 dismissed; no extension of time granted

Orders

  • Summons dated 17 December 2019 dismissed