SHAIK ABDUL MONIR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAIK ABDUL MONIR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify court review of the Director's decision and, on the appeal before the Board, the applicant's deliberate refusal to cooperate entitled the Adjudicator to place little weight on his account and to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 132
Parties
Applicant: Shaik Abdul Monir; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL922/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Appeal to Statutory Tribunal
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Procedural Fairness +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaik Abdul Monir

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

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

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave for judicial review of the Director of Immigration's decision is permitted absent exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator's conduct in the appeal hearing amounted to procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution on return to India

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify court review of the Director's decision and, on the appeal before the Board, the applicant's deliberate refusal to cooperate entitled the Adjudicator to place little weight on his account and to dismiss the appeal; the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave dismissed