MD SUMON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MD SUMON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused leave because, on rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the Director and the Adjudicator had considered the facts and law, there was no evidence of state instigation or acquiescence, reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available, there was no procedural unfairness and no Wednesbury unreasonableness; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1179
Parties
Applicant: Md Sumon; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL1132/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification of Judge's Decision, 5 June 2018)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, Persecution, Cidtp/bor3, Right to Life/bor2, State Acquiescence and Instigation, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Time Bar and Extension
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat Persecution Cidtp/bor3 +6 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Sumon

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification of Judge's Decision, 5 June 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's and Board's findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or legally flawed
  2. 2 Whether there was state instigation or state acquiescence to persecution or torture
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection and internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because, on rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the Director and the Adjudicator had considered the facts and law, there was no evidence of state instigation or acquiescence, reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available, there was no procedural unfairness and no Wednesbury unreasonableness; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused