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

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

The application for leave was unreasonably late; the applicant failed to show good reason to extend the three-month limit; the Adjudicator conducted a fair process and made reasoned credibility findings which were not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly extension of time was refused and the leave application was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2051
Parties
Applicant: Rizwan; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL107/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Extension of Time Refused and Application for Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Non Refoulement, Limitation Periods
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rizwan

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Extension of Time Refused and Application for Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend the three-month limitation for applying for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision was irrational, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision was susceptible to judicial review after an appeal to the Board had been pursued

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was unreasonably late; the applicant failed to show good reason to extend the three-month limit; the Adjudicator conducted a fair process and made reasoned credibility findings which were not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly extension of time was refused and the leave application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed