SHAB UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SHAB UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension refused because applicant's delay was unjustified and his intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: Board's findings that the applicant exaggerated facts, that state protection and internal relocation were viable, and the absence of BOR3 risk fatally undermined any BOR2 ground, so extension would permit a hopeless appeal.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 563
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
9 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL1063/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Delay and Procedural Compliance, Risk Assessment (bor 2 / BOR 3)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
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 Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Extension of Time; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on the intended appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in refusing to extend time to file notice of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Extension refused because applicant's delay was unjustified and his intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: Board's findings that the applicant exaggerated facts, that state protection and internal relocation were viable, and the absence of BOR3 risk fatally undermined any BOR2 ground, so extension would permit a hopeless appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time refused
  • Application dismissed