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

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

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no credible explanation for the nearly one month delay, the delay was not insignificant and the substantive case was weak; the adjudicator and TCAB had properly and reasonably assessed credibility and country information and there was no realistic prospect...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 289
Parties
Applicant: Moshsin Ali; 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
23 February 2018
Case Number
HCAL400/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Application
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Refugee/persecution Claim, Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Human Rights Administrative Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Refugee/persecution Claim Extension of Time +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moshsin Ali

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 / Decision on Extension of Time and Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time under Order 53 r.4(1)
  2. 2 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  3. 3 Credibility of the applicant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no credible explanation for the nearly one month delay, the delay was not insignificant and the substantive case was weak; the adjudicator and TCAB had properly and reasonably assessed credibility and country information and there was no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused