IMRAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

IMRAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was made out of time without good reason to extend time (undue delay) and, alternatively, the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Secretary and Director had considered the relevant family, humanitarian and non-refoulement issues and their decisions fell within the range of reasonable outcomes given the wide margin of appreciation in immigration control.

Citation
IMRAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant: Imran Muhammad; 2nd Applicant: Wan Shuk Chiu; 1st Putative Respondent: Secretary for Security; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 October 2016
Case Number
HCAL227/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused (for undue delay and alternatively for lack of arguable grounds)
Legal Topics
Deportation Order, Dependant Visa, Judicial Review, Delay/extension of Time, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Non Refoulement (usm)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Deportation Order Dependant Visa Judicial Review Delay/extension of Time Wednesbury Unreasonableness +1 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Muhammad

1st Applicant

Wan Shuk Chiu

2nd Applicant

Secretary for Security

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary and Director failed to inquire into the 1st applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim and the 2nd applicant's fear of return
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary fettered discretion by not considering limited/suspended rescission of the deportation order
  3. 3 Whether the Director misapplied the law by treating 'no record of detriment' as an eligibility criterion

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was made out of time without good reason to extend time (undue delay) and, alternatively, the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Secretary and Director had considered the relevant family, humanitarian and non-refoulement issues and their decisions fell within the range of reasonable outcomes given the wide margin of appreciation in immigration control.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused (for undue delay and alternatively for lack of arguable grounds)

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • No order as to costs (order nisi)