FARMAN NAVEED v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

FARMAN NAVEED v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence after oral hearing; COI and state protection/internal relocation were properly considered; therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 266
Parties
Applicant: Farman Naveed; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Betty Kwan, Adjudicator of Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL1331/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation +4 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farman Naveed

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Betty Kwan, Adjudicator of Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation made non-refoulement protection unnecessary

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence after oral hearing; COI and state protection/internal relocation were properly considered; therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused