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

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

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time (two days late) and the applicant failed to show any good reason to extend the statutory three‑month limit; additionally the Board's decision was not shown to be Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair and the applicant could not judicially review the Director's decision once an appeal to the Board was pursued.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2162
Parties
Applicant: Umar Shahzad; 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
3 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL152/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Convention, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Service of Documents, Internal Relocation, Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Convention Judicial Review Extension of Time Procedural Fairness +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Umar Shahzad

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 / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late application (two days past the 3-month limit) merited an extension of time
  2. 2 Whether the Board’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether applicant was prejudiced by non-receipt of documents and lack of legal/language assistance

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time (two days late) and the applicant failed to show any good reason to extend the statutory three‑month limit; additionally the Board's decision was not shown to be Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair and the applicant could not judicially review the Director's decision once an appeal to the Board was pursued.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision dated 31 October 2017 refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed