HUSSAIN SADA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

HUSSAIN SADA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised and did not identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the primary decision-makers lawfully assessed credibility, found risk localized and internal relocation reasonable, and their conclusions were within range of reasonable outcomes so no prospect of success on judicial review existed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1318
Parties
Applicant: Hussain Sada; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Appointed to Determine the Applicant’s Petition
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1036/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture) / Leave Application Refused; Decision on Papers and Oral Submissions by Applicant
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Judicial Review (wednesbury), Country of Origin Information, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 +5 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hussain Sada

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Appointed to Determine the Applicant’s Petition

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture) / Leave Application Refused; Decision on Papers and Oral Submissions by Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Director and Appeal Board erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting non-refoulement/torture claims
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or police collusion made return unlawful
  3. 3 Whether reliable internal relocation was available to avoid risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised and did not identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the primary decision-makers lawfully assessed credibility, found risk localized and internal relocation reasonable, and their conclusions were within range of reasonable outcomes so no prospect of success on judicial review existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.