REZAUL MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

REZAUL MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Refusal to extend time because the applicant's delay was extremely substantial and inordinate, the asserted reasons did not justify the delay in the circumstances (despite some allowance made for custody), and critically the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds or show any reasonable prospect of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 1616
Parties
Applicant: Rezaul Mohammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2025
Case Number
HCAL155/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (hearing in Chambers)
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Service of Process, Procedural Fairness, Delay
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Service of Process Procedural Fairness +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rezaul Mohammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (hearing in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether delay was inordinate and the reasons for it
  3. 3 Whether there was any reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to extend time because the applicant's delay was extremely substantial and inordinate, the asserted reasons did not justify the delay in the circumstances (despite some allowance made for custody), and critically the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds or show any reasonable prospect of success, rendering extension futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse application for extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review
  • Dismiss the applicant's summons