NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Leave was refused because the DOI and Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, adequately considered COI and state protection, and made rational and adequately reasoned adverse credibility findings which disposed of the claim; the intended grounds of review were not reasonably arguable.

Citation
NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: NS; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2016
Case Number
HCAL26/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused at First Instance
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (cat), State Acquiescence and Due Diligence, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness and Duty to Inquire, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury/irrationality Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Refugee and Non Refoulement Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture (cat) State Acquiescence and Due Diligence Internal Relocation +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NS

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DOI and Adjudicator failed to observe procedural fairness in assessing non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether DOI/Adjudicator erred in law in failing to apply concept of extended state acquiescence and Committee Against Torture guidance
  3. 3 Whether COI was inadequately or selectively considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the DOI and Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, adequately considered COI and state protection, and made rational and adequately reasoned adverse credibility findings which disposed of the claim; the intended grounds of review were not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • No order as to costs