SHAIKH ABDUL SAMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAIKH ABDUL SAMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the application was almost six months out of time without good reason and the substantive complaints lacked reasonable prospects of success: the Director and the Board made lawful, reasoned, and non-Wednesbury-unreasonable findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation and met required standards of fairness, so there was no arguable basis for judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1778
Parties
Applicant: Shaikh Abdul Samad; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL359/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening) / Leave Application Heard; Decision on Leave Only
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, State Protection, Delay/limitation (extension of Time), Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration/refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement State Protection Delay/limitation (extension of Time) Procedural Fairness +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaikh Abdul Samad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening) / Leave Application Heard; Decision on Leave Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was out of time and whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or acted Wednesbury unreasonably in refusing non-refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection and state acquiescence were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the application was almost six months out of time without good reason and the substantive complaints lacked reasonable prospects of success: the Director and the Board made lawful, reasoned, and non-Wednesbury-unreasonable findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation and met required standards of fairness, so there was no arguable basis for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.