AAMIR NADEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AAMIR NADEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because (1) the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to permit judicial review of the Director's decision after pursuing an appeal to the Board, consistent with binding authority; (2) the Board had considered and rejected the applicant's appeal on credibility and substantive grounds, and the applicant failed to show procedural unfairness, bias, or that lack of legal representation or non-translation caused miscarriage; and (3) the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1656
Parties
Applicant: Aamir Nadeem; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL1453/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused and Application Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aamir Nadeem

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused and Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant can seek judicial review of the Director's decision after pursuing an appeal to the Board
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to permit judicial review of the Director's decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was procedurally unfair or biased

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because (1) the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to permit judicial review of the Director's decision after pursuing an appeal to the Board, consistent with binding authority; (2) the Board had considered and rejected the applicant's appeal on credibility and substantive grounds, and the applicant failed to show procedural unfairness, bias, or that lack of legal representation or non-translation caused miscarriage; and (3) the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed