AM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

AM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The Adjudicator’s decision was quashed because he failed to make adequate inquiry into contemporary country conditions and misdirected himself on the law of State acquiescence by ignoring the extended/passive acquiescence concept; the Assessor’s determination was quashed because key findings on State protection and internal relocation were unqualified, inadequately reasoned and Wednesbury unreasonable in light of available country reports; both decisions must be set aside and the claim remitted for further processing.

Citation
AM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: AM; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent (adjudicator): William Lam
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Case Number
HCAL102/2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions on Convention Against Torture Claim / Final Judgment (decision on Judicial Review)
Outcome
Application for judicial review granted in part; Determination of Assessor and Decision of Adjudicator quashed; matter remitted to Director for further processing; costs ordered nisi to applicant on Legal Aid scale to become absolute in 14 days.
Legal Topics
Convention Against Torture, Non Refoulement, State Acquiescence, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Country of Origin Information, Right to Oral Hearing, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law International Human Rights Law Convention Against Torture Non Refoulement State Acquiescence Procedural Fairness +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

William Lam

2nd Respondent (adjudicator)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions on Convention Against Torture Claim / Final Judgment (decision on Judicial Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Assessor and Adjudicator made adequate inquiry into country conditions
  2. 2 Whether there was State instigation, consent or acquiescence amounting to torture
  3. 3 Whether decisions were Wednesbury unreasonable and inadequately reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator’s decision was quashed because he failed to make adequate inquiry into contemporary country conditions and misdirected himself on the law of State acquiescence by ignoring the extended/passive acquiescence concept; the Assessor’s determination was quashed because key findings on State protection and internal relocation were unqualified, inadequately reasoned and Wednesbury unreasonable in light of available country reports; both decisions must be set aside and the claim remitted for further processing.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review granted in part; Determination of Assessor and Decision of Adjudicator quashed; matter remitted to Director for further processing; costs ordered nisi to applicant on Legal Aid scale to become absolute in 14 days.

Orders

  • Quash Notice of Determination dated 20 January 2012 (Assessor/Director)
  • Quash Adjudicator's Decision dated 27 February 2012 and remit the applicant's convention claim to the Director for further processing