MOHAMMAD ANSAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

MOHAMMAD ANSAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Three weeks' delay combined with the absence of any realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal — the Board's unchallenged findings that there was no evidence of risk and that state protection and internal relocation were available — justified refusal of an extension of time.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2836
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Ansar; 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
15 November 2023
Case Number
HCAL980/2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement Claim, Refoulement, Appeal Prospects
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Claim +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Ansar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to file notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Application of the four-factor test for extension of time (length of delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice)

Ratio Decidendi

Three weeks' delay combined with the absence of any realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal — the Board's unchallenged findings that there was no evidence of risk and that state protection and internal relocation were available — justified refusal of an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time refused; application dismissed.