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

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

The adjudicator correctly applied s.37ZT by requiring documentary evidence for the explanation of late filing; the applicant provided no such evidence and failed to establish an arguable BOR 2 risk; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1355
Parties
Applicant: Narinder Kumar; 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
27 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL606/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application (refusal of Leave)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time for Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Bill of Rights (bor 2 Risk)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee and Protection Law Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time for Appeal Procedural Fairness +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narinder Kumar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application (refusal of Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB adjudicator erred in refusing to extend time for filing the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real risk to life under BOR 2 if returned to India

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator correctly applied s.37ZT by requiring documentary evidence for the explanation of late filing; the applicant provided no such evidence and failed to establish an arguable BOR 2 risk; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused