NAEEM MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

NAEEM MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Applicant was more than one and a half years late, failed to provide adequate justification for the delay (decision had been sent to his last known address), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse credibility findings and finding that internal relocation was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1715
Parties
Applicant: Naeem Muhammad; 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
10 July 2023
Case Number
HCAL1136/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Refusal of Leave (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Chambers Decision on Summons for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Credibility Findings +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naeem Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Refusal of Leave (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Chambers Decision on Summons for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for filing the notice of appeal
  2. 2 Length and justification of the delay
  3. 3 Prospect of success of the intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant was more than one and a half years late, failed to provide adequate justification for the delay (decision had been sent to his last known address), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse credibility findings and finding that internal relocation was available were unchallenged; therefore extension of time must be refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time refused
  • Application dismissed