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

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

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's findings that the applicant was not in genuine fear were supported by the applicant's long unexplained delay and absence of evidence of state acquiescence; the Adjudicator properly considered state protection and internal relocation and made no error of law or procedural unfairness, so the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 206
Parties
Applicant: Mozammel; 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
30 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL698/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CAT Protection, Persecution, State Protection and State Acquiescence, Internal Relocation, Delay in Lodging Claim, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture and CAT Protection Persecution State Protection and State Acquiescence +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mozammel

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator misdirected himself in law
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider extended state acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's findings that the applicant was not in genuine fear were supported by the applicant's long unexplained delay and absence of evidence of state acquiescence; the Adjudicator properly considered state protection and internal relocation and made no error of law or procedural unfairness, so the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.