AMANDEEP v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AMANDEEP v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court found the Director and the Adjudicator each gave due consideration to the applicant's claims, applied the law correctly, used up‑to‑date COI, afforded fair process including interviews and an oral appeal hearing, reasonably concluded there were no substantial grounds for non‑refoulement protection, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1000
Parties
Applicant: AMANDEEP; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 May 2018
Case Number
HCAL689/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Unified Screening Mechanism, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Country‑of‑origin Information
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Persecution Unified Screening Mechanism +4 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMANDEEP

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Director and Adjudicator acted unlawfully or unfairly in screening and appeal process
  2. 2 Whether decisions were Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether state protection and state acquiescence were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Director and the Adjudicator each gave due consideration to the applicant's claims, applied the law correctly, used up‑to‑date COI, afforded fair process including interviews and an oral appeal hearing, reasonably concluded there were no substantial grounds for non‑refoulement protection, and their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospects of success and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused