IQBAL QAMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

IQBAL QAMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no reasonably arguable basis of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the applicant had ample time to produce evidence, failed to do so, and the Adjudicator's handling was lawful and within reasonable bounds, so there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1230
Parties
Applicant: Iqbal Qamar; Putative Respondent: 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
15 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL254/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Considered on the Papers; Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Procedural Fairness, Torture Risk, Unified Screening Mechanism, TCAB Rehearing
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Leave to Apply Procedural Fairness +3 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iqbal Qamar

Applicant

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 / Considered on the Papers; Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator acted unfairly or unreasonably
  3. 3 Whether lack of time to obtain evidence amounted to procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no reasonably arguable basis of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the applicant had ample time to produce evidence, failed to do so, and the Adjudicator's handling was lawful and within reasonable bounds, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.