IBRAHIM v. SIMON RUSSELL, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

IBRAHIM v. SIMON RUSSELL, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

The court found that the Board and Director had considered the applicant's case, applied the relevant statutory and Convention provisions, and afforded a fair interview and hearing; the applicant's procedural complaints were either unsupported, inconsistent with his court statements, or rejected by binding authority, and he failed to show a reasonable prospect of success for judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1625
Parties
Applicant: Ibrahim; Putative Respondent: Simon Russell, ESQ.; Putative Interested Party: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 June 2019
Case Number
HCAL1748/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims (cat), Screening, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims (cat) Screening Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ibrahim

Applicant

Simon Russell, ESQ.

Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by lack of legal representation before the Board
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied adequate time and interpreter assistance to prepare his appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Board impermissibly relied on hearsay or outdated Country of Origin Information

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Board and Director had considered the applicant's case, applied the relevant statutory and Convention provisions, and afforded a fair interview and hearing; the applicant's procedural complaints were either unsupported, inconsistent with his court statements, or rejected by binding authority, and he failed to show a reasonable prospect of success for judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse leave to apply for judicial review and dismiss the application dated 26 June 2019