HOSSAIN MD RAKIB v. GINA TOWNEY, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

HOSSAIN MD RAKIB v. GINA TOWNEY, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by the materials, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, the appeal bundle was served within the prescribed time, the applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from lack of representation, and the Director had screened the relevant risks; the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and lacked a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 691
Parties
Applicant: Hossain MD Rakib; Putative Respondent: Adjudicator (Torture Claims Appeal Board); Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL760/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, Persecution, Screening and Appeals Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration and Asylum Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat Persecution Screening and Appeals Procedure Procedural Fairness +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossain MD Rakib

Applicant

Adjudicator (Torture Claims Appeal Board)

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator unlawfully fettered discretion
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator made irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by the materials, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, the appeal bundle was served within the prescribed time, the applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from lack of representation, and the Director had screened the relevant risks; the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and lacked a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.