ZEESHAN KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ZEESHAN KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory, non‑contradictory explanation for the delay and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1991
Parties
Applicant: Zeeshan Khan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Respondent: Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL1667/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Summons in Chambers (dismissed)
Outcome
Applicant's summons for extension of time dismissed; no extension granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Credibility Findings, Interlocutory Appeal
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Credibility Findings Interlocutory Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zeeshan Khan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

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 to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Summons in Chambers (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal an interlocutory order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory, non‑contradictory explanation for the delay and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.

Court Disposition

Applicant's summons for extension of time dismissed; no extension granted

Orders

  • The applicant's summons dated 19 July 2019 is dismissed.