SHAH ABDULLAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SHAH ABDULLAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was approximately six months late and there was no realistic prospect of success: the applicant failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board's adverse credibility finding, rendering the intended appeal hopeless.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1025
Parties
Applicant: Shah Abdullah; 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
2 May 2023
Case Number
HCAL689/2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time (without Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Prospect of Success, Procedure Oral Hearing Waiver
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Non Refoulement Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Credibility Findings Prospect of Success +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shah Abdullah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time (without Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were challengeable on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was approximately six months late and there was no realistic prospect of success: the applicant failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board's adverse credibility finding, rendering the intended appeal hopeless.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time refused
  • Application dismissed