HALIM ABDUL v. KAY RANSOME, ESQ., AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

HALIM ABDUL v. KAY RANSOME, ESQ., AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director's and Board's decisions involved no error of law or procedural unfairness, the risk to the applicant was assessed as localized and low, reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available, and the applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and had no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2054
Parties
Applicant: Halim Abdul; Putative Respondent: Kay Ransome, ESQ., Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL936/2017
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/article 3 BOR, Right to Life Article 2 BOR, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Screening and Appeals to Torture Claims Appeal Board
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 BOR Right to Life Article 2 BOR +5 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halim Abdul

Applicant

Kay Ransome, ESQ., Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director made irrational findings of fact or law
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director's and Board's decisions involved no error of law or procedural unfairness, the risk to the applicant was assessed as localized and low, reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available, and the applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.