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

DEWAN ASLAM v. 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 Director and the Board adequately considered the claims on credibility, state protection and internal relocation, applied the law correctly, afforded procedural fairness and reached decisions that were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1468
Parties
Applicant: Dewan Aslam; 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
9 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL1154/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Torture, Persecution, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Asylum Torture Persecution +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dewan Aslam

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 / Leave Application (notification of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Timeliness of the judicial review application and extension of time
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in assessing risk of torture, persecution, CIDTP and risk to life
  3. 3 Assessment of state protection and police corruption in country of origin

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board adequately considered the claims on credibility, state protection and internal relocation, applied the law correctly, afforded procedural fairness and reached decisions that were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused