SHAIKH SHAMIM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAIKH SHAMIM v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding was justified by the applicant's refusal to give evidence; the risk was properly assessed as low and localized with reasonable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1937
Parties
Applicant: Shaikh Shamim; 1st Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL559/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Wednesbury Reasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 Wednesbury Reasonableness +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaikh Shamim

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office appointed to determine the Applicant’s Petition

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in assessing the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or denial of opportunity to present evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding was justified by the applicant's refusal to give evidence; the risk was properly assessed as low and localized with reasonable internal relocation available; therefore no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused