MOHAMMAD ZAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD ZAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant's leave application was refused because he filed 2 years and 10 months late without any explanation or good reason, his intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and both decision‑makers had correctly applied legal principles including availability of state protection and internal relocation; accordingly time was not extended and leave was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 425
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Zahid; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 February 2024
Case Number
HCAL692/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave / Decision on Leave Application (refused and Dismissed)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Extension of Time for Leave, Judicial Review Procedure
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Internal Relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Zahid

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave / Decision on Leave Application (refused and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for a leave application filed 2 years 10 months late
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has any reasonably arguable grounds of error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director correctly assessed risk including availability of state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's leave application was refused because he filed 2 years and 10 months late without any explanation or good reason, his intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and both decision‑makers had correctly applied legal principles including availability of state protection and internal relocation; accordingly time was not extended and leave was dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 15 March 2017 refused
  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed