MD ABUL HASAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

MD ABUL HASAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success: the Director and the Chairperson correctly applied the applicable law, there was no demonstrable procedural unfairness or prejudice from lack of an oral hearing, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
MD ABUL HASAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Parties
Applicant: MD ABUL HASAN; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; Chairperson / Adjudicator: Madam Betty Kwan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Case Number
HCAL53/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave Application for Judicial Review (immigration/torture Claim) / Hearing on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Convention Against Torture, Torture Claim Determination, Right to Oral Hearing, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refoulement/cat Convention Against Torture Torture Claim Determination Right to Oral Hearing +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD ABUL HASAN

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Madam Betty Kwan

Chairperson / Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Leave Application for Judicial Review (immigration/torture Claim) / Hearing on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a right to an oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Torture Claim Appeal Board correctly applied the definition of torture under s37U(1) of the Immigration Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success: the Director and the Chairperson correctly applied the applicable law, there was no demonstrable procedural unfairness or prejudice from lack of an oral hearing, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused