MOHAMMAD AKRAM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD AKRAM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant’s grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness was identified in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; credibility adverse findings and assessment that the risk was localized with available state protection and internal relocation made the claim untenable; therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 594
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Akram; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Case Number
HCAL465/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (leave Stage)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Wednesbury Unreasonableness Internal Relocation +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Akram

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (leave Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law in assessing the applicant’s non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether the decisions were Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant would face a real risk to life or torture contrary to BOR Articles 2 and 3

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant’s grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness was identified in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; credibility adverse findings and assessment that the risk was localized with available state protection and internal relocation made the claim untenable; therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.