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

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

Extension of time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were lawful, rational and not procedurally unfair, therefore the application was hopeless and extension was not justified.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2134
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Jamshied; 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
26 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1452/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application for Judicial Review; Application Considered on Paper; Extension of Time Refused and Application Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Extension of Time +5 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Jamshied

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application for Judicial Review; Application Considered on Paper; Extension of Time Refused and Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision was affected by error of law, procedural unfairness or was Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of violation of the right to life, torture/CIDTP or persecution if returned

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were lawful, rational and not procedurally unfair, therefore the application was hopeless and extension was not justified.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The extension of time for the application for judicial review is refused.
  • The application for judicial review is dismissed.