SHAHZAD UMAR v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAHZAD UMAR v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Because the applicant's withdrawal of his appeal was accepted by the Board, the appeal ceased and the Board was functus officio; consequently the Board correctly refused to reopen the appeal and the application for leave for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 343
Parties
Applicant: Shahzad Umar; 1st Putative Respondent: Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL1557/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Leave to Apply / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Withdrawal of Appeal, Functus Officio, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Withdrawal of Appeal +2 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shahzad Umar

Applicant

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

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review — Leave to Apply / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board had power to reopen an appeal after the claimant validly withdrew the appeal and the Board accepted the withdrawal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant could obtain leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's refusal to reopen the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Director's original decision rejecting the non-refoulement claim required fresh consideration in light of the attempted withdrawal and reopening

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant's withdrawal of his appeal was accepted by the Board, the appeal ceased and the Board was functus officio; consequently the Board correctly refused to reopen the appeal and the application for leave for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave for judicial review dismissed