SARDAR MD MANIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SARDAR MD MANIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the adjudicator's decision was lawfully reached and contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, the applicant was found not credible and failed to provide particulars or evidence of severe harm or arguable grounds; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1159
Parties
Applicant: Sardar MD Manir; 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
7 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL492/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification Under Order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Right to Life, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Right to Life +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sardar MD Manir

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 (notification Under Order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator erred in law
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the appeal hearing
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator failed to consider relevant and up-to-date country of origin information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the adjudicator's decision was lawfully reached and contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, the applicant was found not credible and failed to provide particulars or evidence of severe harm or arguable grounds; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused