SIDDIQUE AAMIR v. CORRINA TAI, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SIDDIQUE AAMIR v. CORRINA TAI, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars, the Director and the Board lawfully found the matter to be a private localized dispute with available state protection and viable internal relocation, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and therefore no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 922
Parties
Applicant: Siddique Aamir; 1st Putative Respondent: Corrina Tai, The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Case Number
HCAL37/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement Claim, Asylum, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Persecution, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Refugee Law Non Refoulement Claim Asylum Torture Risk +6 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siddique Aamir

Applicant

Corrina Tai, The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law in assessing risk of harm including torture and persecution
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or collusion and inability of Pakistani authorities to protect the applicant were properly considered
  3. 3 Whether relevant Country of Origin Information was considered or disregarded

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars, the Director and the Board lawfully found the matter to be a private localized dispute with available state protection and viable internal relocation, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and therefore no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.