ALI HASNAIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI HASNAIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator conducted adequate inquiry, afforded the Applicant opportunities to present and elaborate his case, the credibility and factual findings (including absence of state involvement and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2023
Parties
Applicant: Ali Hasnain; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL827/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Screening Process, Two Tier Screening, Article 3 CAT, Article 33 Refugee Convention, Bill of Rights
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +8 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Hasnain

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiry
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's custody unjustifiably hindered his ability to present evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or denial of opportunity to arrange evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator conducted adequate inquiry, afforded the Applicant opportunities to present and elaborate his case, the credibility and factual findings (including absence of state involvement and availability of internal relocation) were supported by reasons and were not Wednesbury-unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.