KHAN IRFAN v.WILLIAM LAM, ADJUDICATOR OF NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN IRFAN v.WILLIAM LAM, ADJUDICATOR OF NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant offered no satisfactory documentary explanation for a delay of more than six weeks, his proposed grounds were vague and lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable on their merits, and there was no identifiable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; consequently there was no prospect of success to justify extending time or granting leave.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 813
Parties
Applicant: Khan Irfan; 1st Putative Respondent: William Lam, Adjudicator of Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 May 2019
Case Number
HCAL486/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time for filing application for leave refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Extension of Time +3 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

Khan Irfan

Applicant

William Lam, Adjudicator of Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time under Order 53 r 4(1) Cap 4A
  2. 2 Whether the proposed judicial review grounds are reasonably arguable on their merits
  3. 3 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing non-refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant offered no satisfactory documentary explanation for a delay of more than six weeks, his proposed grounds were vague and lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable on their merits, and there was no identifiable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; consequently there was no prospect of success to justify extending time or granting leave.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for filing application for leave refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • An extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed