MD KADER v. FRASER SYME, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MD KADER v. FRASER SYME, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director applied lawful principles, there was no demonstrated error of law or procedural unfairness, the Board reasonably found the risk from private family persecution remote after long passage of time and accepted availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars so there was no prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2109
Parties
Applicant: Md Kader; Putative Respondent: Fraser Syme; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL860/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (torture and Ill‑treatment), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Non Refoulement Torture HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) HKBOR Article 3 (torture and Ill‑treatment) +4 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Kader

Applicant

Fraser Syme

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or procedure in rejecting non-refoulement/torture claims
  2. 2 Whether relevant and up‑to‑date Country of Origin Information was considered and properly weighted
  3. 3 Whether state protection and feasible internal relocation were wrongly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director applied lawful principles, there was no demonstrated error of law or procedural unfairness, the Board reasonably found the risk from private family persecution remote after long passage of time and accepted availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars so there was no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused