MUDASSAR v. SIN MING-HEI, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MUDASSAR v. SIN MING-HEI, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unparticularized, did not show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or Board, and therefore there was no real prospect of success despite a limited extension of time being allowed for filing.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2055
Parties
Applicant: Mudassar; Putative Respondent: Sin Ming-hei, ESQ.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL21/2018
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 Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Country of Origin Information, State Protection, Delay and Extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mudassar

Applicant

Sin Ming-hei, ESQ.

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted unfairly in assessing the non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator failed to take into account or properly weigh Country of Origin Information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and unparticularized, did not show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or Board, and therefore there was no real prospect of success despite a limited extension of time being allowed for filing.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Time for filing the leave application extended by approximately three weeks