RASHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RASHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave application because the applicant was over four months late, offered no satisfactory explanation for delay, and the intended judicial review disclosed no arguable merit given adverse credibility findings and objective COI indicating available state protection and internal relocation.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1047
Parties
Applicant: Rashid; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL140/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed; Application for Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Leave for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation and State Protection
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashid

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed; Application for Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for filing a Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review application discloses an arguable or meritorious ground
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave application because the applicant was over four months late, offered no satisfactory explanation for delay, and the intended judicial review disclosed no arguable merit given adverse credibility findings and objective COI indicating available state protection and internal relocation.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for filing the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed