MOHAMMAD HASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD HASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director correctly applied the statutory test for subsequent claims, found no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success, and the decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality warranting judicial intervention.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3521
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Hasim; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1468/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Consideration on Documents Under Order 53; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim, Torture and CIDTP, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Torture and CIDTP +5 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Hasim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Consideration on Documents Under Order 53; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully rejected the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under s37ZO
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable, procedurally unfair or tainted by error of law

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director correctly applied the statutory test for subsequent claims, found no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success, and the decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality warranting judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed