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

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

The applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and evidential support; he had sufficient opportunity to present and elaborate his case; the Director and the Adjudicator considered the claim carefully, addressed state protection and internal relocation, made no error of law and their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospects and must be refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1257
Parties
Applicant: Faisal Muhammad; 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
12 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL1151/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (notification Under Order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CAT Risk, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness in Screening, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture and CAT Risk Persecution Internal Relocation +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faisal Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (notification Under Order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board failed to properly consider state protection and state acquiescence
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness standards required in non-refoulement claims were breached
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and evidential support; he had sufficient opportunity to present and elaborate his case; the Director and the Adjudicator considered the claim carefully, addressed state protection and internal relocation, made no error of law and their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospects and must be refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused