RUSTAM ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RUSTAM ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for a delay of approximately 399 days and the proposed appeal, based solely on lack of representation at the BOR2 assessment, had no real prospect of success; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 448
Parties
Applicant: Rustam Adnan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Respondent: Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL284/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Interlocutory Order Refusing Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Hearing and Decision on Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement (bor2), Procedural Fairness, Right to Legal Representation
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement (bor2) 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustam Adnan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Interlocutory Order Refusing Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Hearing and Decision on Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal an interlocutory order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's lack of legal representation at the BOR2 hearing amounted to a denial of procedural fairness warranting appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for a delay of approximately 399 days and the proposed appeal, based solely on lack of representation at the BOR2 assessment, had no real prospect of success; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dated 12 October 2018 dismissed