MGM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

MGM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused as the application was out of time and an abuse of process; alternatively, the substantive grounds lacked merit because threats and harassment did not meet the statutory threshold of severe suffering, state acquiescence and country condition issues were not raised at first instance, internal relocation was reasonably available, and any first-instance errors were cured by a rehearing; costs were awarded to the Director.

Citation
MGM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: MGM; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: The Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Case Number
HCAL63/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed; extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (severe Physical or Mental Suffering), Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, State Acquiescence, Curative Principle, Costs
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Public Law Non Refoulement Torture (severe Physical or Mental Suffering) Extension of Time Internal Relocation +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MGM

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

The Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether verbal threats and harassment meet the threshold of 'severe physical or mental suffering' for torture under section 37U(1)
  2. 2 whether state acquiescence and country condition materials were properly considered
  3. 3 whether internal relocation was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused as the application was out of time and an abuse of process; alternatively, the substantive grounds lacked merit because threats and harassment did not meet the statutory threshold of severe suffering, state acquiescence and country condition issues were not raised at first instance, internal relocation was reasonably available, and any first-instance errors were cured by a rehearing; costs were awarded to the Director.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; extension of time refused

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed and extension of time refused
  • Costs to the Director of Immigration on an indemnity basis, summarily assessed at $400000 HKD