SHAB UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAB UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the application was out of time without adequate explanation, the length of delay and lack of particularised explanation rendered an extension an abuse of process, and on the merits the adjudicator's findings were reasonable (not Wednesbury unreasonable): the applicant failed to demonstrate a real personal risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution and state protection/internal relocation were available, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 875
Parties
Applicant: Shab Uddin; 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
4 May 2018
Case Number
HCAL597/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Notification of Decision Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (cat), CIDTP, Refugee Law, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time/delay, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Country of Origin Information, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture (cat) CIDTP Refugee Law +7 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shab Uddin

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Notification of Decision Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time should be granted for filing Form 86 under Order 53 Rule 4
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture as defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance or CIDTP under BOR Art 3/ICCPR Art 7
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real risk of persecution under the Refugee Convention (Art 33 and 1A(2))

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the application was out of time without adequate explanation, the length of delay and lack of particularised explanation rendered an extension an abuse of process, and on the merits the adjudicator's findings were reasonable (not Wednesbury unreasonable): the applicant failed to demonstrate a real personal risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution and state protection/internal relocation were available, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • No extension of time granted for filing Form 86