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

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

The applicant failed to show any arguable prospect of success: both appeals were out of time without satisfactory explanation; the Board validly exercised statutory power to decide without a hearing and to refuse extension of time after considering merits; the procedural fairness complaints were unsupported by evidence; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1105
Parties
Applicant: Md Yousuf Miah; 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
9 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1593/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (cidtp), Refugee Convention Article 33, Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Bill of Rights Article 3 (cidtp) Refugee Convention Article 33 +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Yousuf Miah

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 (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board properly refused an extension of time for appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Board breached procedural fairness to a self-represented claimant
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of right to life

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to show any arguable prospect of success: both appeals were out of time without satisfactory explanation; the Board validly exercised statutory power to decide without a hearing and to refuse extension of time after considering merits; the procedural fairness complaints were unsupported by evidence; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.