ISLAM MD SHORIFUL v. GRACE MA, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

ISLAM MD SHORIFUL v. GRACE MA, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies and omissions, there was no demonstrable error of law, no procedural unfairness and no irrationality in the Board's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 29
Parties
Applicant: Islam Md Shoriful; Putative Respondent: Grace Ma, Esq.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL602/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Screening Process, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Screening Process Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment +2 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Islam Md Shoriful

Applicant

Grace Ma, Esq.

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies and omissions, there was no demonstrable error of law, no procedural unfairness and no irrationality in the Board's decision, the Director had properly considered BOR2 risk and the applicant failed to show prejudice from alleged lack of representation or timing of documents.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.