ZEESHAN UL HAQ v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

ZEESHAN UL HAQ v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility finding was entitled to deference and the risk was localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation options, so no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1780
Parties
Applicant: Zeeshan Ul Haq; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL583/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Refugee Convention Article 33, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Refugee Convention Article 33 +4 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zeeshan Ul Haq

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were any reasonably arguable grounds of legal error or procedural unfairness to merit leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in rejecting the non‑refoulement claim where it made adverse credibility findings after an oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether the alleged risk was sufficiently serious or systemic to negate availability of state protection or internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility finding was entitled to deference and the risk was localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation options, so no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.