RAI SUKHA DEV v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

RAI SUKHA DEV v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Extension refused because applicant provided no credible explanation for the substantial delay, contradicted his own statements, failed to present any arguable grounds for appeal meaning the intended appeal had no prospect of success, and granting extension would cause prejudice and encourage abuse of the non-refoulement system and public resources.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 436
Parties
Applicant: Rai Sukha Dev; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2023
Case Number
HCAL1021/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Application for Extension of Time / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Procedural Fairness Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Abuse of Process

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rai Sukha Dev

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Application for Extension of Time / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether illiteracy or lack of legal representation justifies extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has any prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension refused because applicant provided no credible explanation for the substantial delay, contradicted his own statements, failed to present any arguable grounds for appeal meaning the intended appeal had no prospect of success, and granting extension would cause prejudice and encourage abuse of the non-refoulement system and public resources.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused.