SHAIKH QUTUBUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAIKH QUTUBUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave application because delay of almost eight months was excessive with no explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and the assessments that risk was low and internal relocation and state protection were available were not irrational or unlawful.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2185
Parties
Applicant: Shaikh Qutubuddin; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 October 2019
Case Number
HCAL358/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply Refused; Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Judicial Review Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, Fugitive From Justice
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Judicial Review Extension of Time +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaikh Qutubuddin

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply Refused; Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review under Order 53 r4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has a reasonably arguable merit
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces real risk of torture or ill-treatment from private actor or state on return to India

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave application because delay of almost eight months was excessive with no explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and the assessments that risk was low and internal relocation and state protection were available were not irrational or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed