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

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

Extension of time was refused because the application was approximately six months late, the applicant offered no explanation for the delay, the intended grounds lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Adjudicator's finding that the applicant was wholly unreliable and the grounds were boilerplate, and therefore no justification existed to extend time.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1903
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Eshan; 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
27 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL1138/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed as out of time
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Delay, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time Procedural Delay +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Eshan

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 (non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to seek leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided an explanation for the delay that would justify an extension
  3. 3 Whether the intended grounds have a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the application was approximately six months late, the applicant offered no explanation for the delay, the intended grounds lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Adjudicator's finding that the applicant was wholly unreliable and the grounds were boilerplate, and therefore no justification existed to extend time.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed as being out of time