RAMANPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RAMANPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant had delayed over 1 year and 10 months, provided insufficient reasons to justify the delay (mere assertion of unfairness and non-receipt), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings that the applicant's evidence was unreliable and state protection/internal relocation were available.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 718
Parties
Applicant: Ramanpreet Singh; 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 March 2024
Case Number
HCAL1537/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time to Appeal, Judicial Review, Delay, Prospect of Success
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Judicial Review Delay Prospect of Success

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramanpreet Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing an appeal against dismissal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant received notice of the court's decision
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant had delayed over 1 year and 10 months, provided insufficient reasons to justify the delay (mere assertion of unfairness and non-receipt), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings that the applicant's evidence was unreliable and state protection/internal relocation were available.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed