KHAN MUSHTAQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN MUSHTAQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because there was an unexplained delay of over 21 months, the applicant's explanation for the delay was not credible, the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings (no real risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation) left the intended review without a reasonable prospect of success, and the Board had no duty to obtain medical reports absent a request.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 761
Parties
Applicant: Khan Mushtaq; 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
12 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL476/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application to Extend Time and Leave Application Dismissed at First Instance
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Judicial Review +4 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Mushtaq

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application to Extend Time and Leave Application Dismissed at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has an arguable/real prospect of success on claims of torture, risk to life (BOR 2) and CIDTP (BOR 3)
  3. 3 Whether the Board had a duty to advise the applicant to obtain medical reports or otherwise assist

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because there was an unexplained delay of over 21 months, the applicant's explanation for the delay was not credible, the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings (no real risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation) left the intended review without a reasonable prospect of success, and the Board had no duty to obtain medical reports absent a request.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed