MIAH MD NAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

MIAH MD NAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Refused extension of time because the delay of almost two months was substantial and unexplained by corroborating evidence, the court record demonstrated service of the decision, the applicant failed to identify any arguable error or provide draft grounds of appeal, and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success rendering extension futile.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2587
Parties
Applicant: Miah Md Nayan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL375/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Refusal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal After Refusal of Leave
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time to Appeal, Judicial Review, Service of Decision, Prospect of Success
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Judicial Review Service of Decision Prospect of Success

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

Miah Md Nayan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Refusal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal After Refusal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a good reason for almost two months' delay
  3. 3 Whether there is any reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Refused extension of time because the delay of almost two months was substantial and unexplained by corroborating evidence, the court record demonstrated service of the decision, the applicant failed to identify any arguable error or provide draft grounds of appeal, and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success rendering extension futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed and application for extension of time to appeal refused