FAISAL SHAHZAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

FAISAL SHAHZAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, failed to substantiate material facts and refused to give oral evidence on credibility-critical matters, and the Director and Board lawfully concluded there was low risk and reasonable internal relocation available.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 794
Parties
Applicant: Faisal Shahzad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL414/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused After Consideration of Director and Board Decisions
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility and Evidence, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +2 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faisal Shahzad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused After Consideration of Director and Board Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing risk of persecution or torture and BOR2/BOR3 risks
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness arose from the Board’s hearing process
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's refusal to give oral evidence justified discounting his claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, failed to substantiate material facts and refused to give oral evidence on credibility-critical matters, and the Director and Board lawfully concluded there was low risk and reasonable internal relocation available.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused