SABAR HUSSAIN ALIAS SABAR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SABAR HUSSAIN ALIAS SABAR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; credibility findings and risk assessments (including availability of internal relocation and state protection) were matters for primary decision‑makers and were not demonstrably flawed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2589
Parties
Applicant: Sabar Hussain alias Sabar; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Christopher Thwaites, Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL925/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Non Refoulement/torture Decision / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Findings +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabar Hussain alias Sabar

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Christopher Thwaites, Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Non Refoulement/torture Decision / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or procedure in rejecting non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated that state protection and internal relocation were unavailable or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings were properly reached and susceptible to review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; credibility findings and risk assessments (including availability of internal relocation and state protection) were matters for primary decision‑makers and were not demonstrably flawed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused