NISAR AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

NISAR AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director's decision was not susceptible to judicial review once the statutory appeal to the Board was pursued and, on the merits, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantive grounds or a reasonable prospect of success given his deliberate refusal to cooperate with the Board, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2255
Parties
Applicant: Nisar Ahmed; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1800/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Leave

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nisar Ahmed

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's decision is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued
  2. 2 Whether the Board lawfully assessed the claim where the applicant refused to answer questions
  3. 3 Whether the applicant raised substantive grounds with particulars sufficient to show a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director's decision was not susceptible to judicial review once the statutory appeal to the Board was pursued and, on the merits, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantive grounds or a reasonable prospect of success given his deliberate refusal to cooperate with the Board, which entitled the Board to assess the case on available evidence and confirm the Director's decision.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's challenge to the Director's decision dismissed in limine as not susceptible to judicial review once appeal to the Board pursued