RASEL v. WILLIAM LAM, ESQ., [Decision on Leave Application]

RASEL v. WILLIAM LAM, ESQ., [Decision on Leave Application]

The second leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any new, specific, reasonably arguable grounds that were not already rejected in an earlier leave application; the pleaded grounds were vague, lacked particulars and realistic prospects of success, and the re‑submission constituted an abuse of the court process (res judicata).

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 158
Parties
Applicant: Rasel; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL912/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Procedural Fairness, Res Judicata/abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Procedural Fairness Res Judicata/abuse of Process +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rasel

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

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 the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The second leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any new, specific, reasonably arguable grounds that were not already rejected in an earlier leave application; the pleaded grounds were vague, lacked particulars and realistic prospects of success, and the re‑submission constituted an abuse of the court process (res judicata).

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed