SHAKEEL MUHAMMAD v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAKEEL MUHAMMAD v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

The renewed application for leave was dismissed because the Adjudicator did not err in law or commit procedural unfairness, the contested findings (private dispute, no state actor, insufficient severity, viability of internal relocation) were matters for the Board, the alleged misdirection was unfounded, and the second identical application constituted an abuse of process with no special circumstances to justify reconsideration.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 674
Parties
Applicant: Shakeel Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Kevin Anthony Browne, Esq.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL340/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Dismissed on Renewed/repeat Application (second Leave Application)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Risk of Torture, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave Application, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non‑refoulement Risk of Torture Persecution Internal Relocation +3 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shakeel Muhammad

Applicant

Kevin Anthony Browne, Esq.

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Dismissed on Renewed/repeat Application (second Leave Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator misdirected himself in law regarding requirement of past torture to establish future torture risk
  2. 2 Whether the Board's/adjudicator's findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or affected by legal error or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation and absence of state actor defeat the non‑refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

The renewed application for leave was dismissed because the Adjudicator did not err in law or commit procedural unfairness, the contested findings (private dispute, no state actor, insufficient severity, viability of internal relocation) were matters for the Board, the alleged misdirection was unfounded, and the second identical application constituted an abuse of process with no special circumstances to justify reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.