FAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

FAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The court held that both the Director and the Adjudicator had considered the concept of State acquiescence (including the extended form) and mental/physical suffering, relied on sufficient COI and reasoning, and their conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the additional affidavit was irrelevant and inadmissible; therefore the judicial review failed and the impugned decisions were not quashed.

Citation
FAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: FAR; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 May 2017
Case Number
HCAL76/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application for judicial review dismissed; impugned decisions of Director and Adjudicator not quashed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture (cat), State Acquiescence, Due Diligence, Standard of Review (wednesbury/anxious Scrutiny), Admissibility of Evidence, Relocation/state Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture (cat) State Acquiescence Due Diligence +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FAR

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether decision-makers addressed extended form of State acquiescence
  2. 2 Whether mental suffering as well as physical suffering qualifies as "severe" for torture under section 37U(1)
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents' risk assessment was irrational/Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that both the Director and the Adjudicator had considered the concept of State acquiescence (including the extended form) and mental/physical suffering, relied on sufficient COI and reasoning, and their conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the additional affidavit was irrelevant and inadmissible; therefore the judicial review failed and the impugned decisions were not quashed.

Court Disposition

application for judicial review dismissed; impugned decisions of Director and Adjudicator not quashed

Orders

  • Leave to adduce the additional (5th) affirmation refused as irrelevant
  • Application for judicial review dismissed on all grounds