MOSTOFA MD v. ALEXANDRA LO, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

MOSTOFA MD v. ALEXANDRA LO, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator had legitimate, evidence‑based reasons for her credibility and risk findings, there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness, the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the Applicant lacked realistic prospects of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 536
Parties
Applicant: Mostofa Md; Putative Respondent: Adjudicator (unnamed); Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL732/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Non Refoulement Decision / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Asylum, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Claim Asylum Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mostofa Md

Applicant

Adjudicator (unnamed)

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Non Refoulement Decision / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator fettered discretion
  2. 2 Alleged procedural unfairness in the Board hearing and disclosure of bundle
  3. 3 Wednesbury unreasonableness/irrationality of the Board's decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator had legitimate, evidence‑based reasons for her credibility and risk findings, there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness, the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the Applicant lacked realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review be refused