MR. JOYDUL MIAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MR. JOYDUL MIAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Refused extension of time because applicant was found unreliable, there was no evidence the Call-1 form was not sent to the correct address (no postal return), the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for an exceptional delay of about 18 months, and the asserted language difficulty was insufficient given the circumstances and the applicant’s subsequent conduct.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1863
Parties
Applicant: Mr. Joydul Miah; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL7/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal After Leave Refused
Outcome
Extension of time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Torture Claim, Service of Process, Credibility and Delay
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Administrative Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Torture Claim Service of Process +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Joydul Miah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was validly served with the Call-1 form
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for an 18-month delay

Ratio Decidendi

Refused extension of time because applicant was found unreliable, there was no evidence the Call-1 form was not sent to the correct address (no postal return), the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for an exceptional delay of about 18 months, and the asserted language difficulty was insufficient given the circumstances and the applicant’s subsequent conduct.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal refused.
  • Applicant may apply directly to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal within 14 days from the date of the Call-1 form.