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

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

The court refused extension of time and leave because the applicant was more than 26 months out of time, failed to provide a credible or adequate explanation for the delay, the Board's decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, the substantive claims had no realistic prospect of success, and allowing the late challenge would prejudice the respondent and amount to abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2053
Parties
Applicant: Md Shaju; 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
16 July 2021
Case Number
HCAL1501/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time and for Leave to Apply; Decision Refused
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Extension of Time, Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Public Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Wednesbury Unreasonableness +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Shaju

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 for Extension of Time and for Leave to Apply; Decision Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision refusing non-refoulement protection was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established torture risk under section 37U of the Immigration Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused extension of time and leave because the applicant was more than 26 months out of time, failed to provide a credible or adequate explanation for the delay, the Board's decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, the substantive claims had no realistic prospect of success, and allowing the late challenge would prejudice the respondent and amount to abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused (dated 16 July 2021)
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused (dated 16 July 2021)