MAHIUDDIN MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MAHIUDDIN MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The Adjudicator's decision was supported by adequate inquiry and rational findings based on identified inconsistencies and lack of corroboration; there was no procedural unfairness or error of law and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and leave for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 377
Parties
Applicant: Mahiuddin Mohammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Dak Wai Lo, Esq.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL1127/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening) / Leave Application (consideration of Documents Only)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Torture Convention, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Asylum Torture Convention Judicial Review Leave +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahiuddin Mohammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Dak Wai Lo, Esq.

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening) / Leave Application (consideration of Documents Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiry and assess the claim properly
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was deprived of opportunity to adduce evidence while in detention
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator's findings were Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator's decision was supported by adequate inquiry and rational findings based on identified inconsistencies and lack of corroboration; there was no procedural unfairness or error of law and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and leave for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave for judicial review refused