Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Country-of-origin information (coi)

  • 23 Mar 2021

    RE VILLAREAL ESPERANZA VALDEZ

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 370
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP175/2019

    Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay (mere bare assertion of lost post), failed to identify any error by the judge (appeal did not challenge the judge's reasoning), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospects of success; the judge's decision refusing leave was not Wednesbury unreasonable and correctly applied the law.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Extension of time to appeal
    • Credibility assessment
    • Country-of-origin information (coi)
    • State protection

  • 27 Nov 2018

    AMANDEEP v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 905
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV186/2018

    The applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect of success; the Director and the Board had considered the facts, applied the law correctly, conducted adequate COI research and afforded procedural fairness; no Wednesbury unreasonable error of law or procedure was shown; per Re Moshsin Ali the Director's decisions are not susceptible to judicial review after an appeal to the Board; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk (article 3 hong kong bill of rights; part viic immigration ordinance)
    • Persecution risk (article 33 refugee convention)
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Procedural fairness

  • 20 Nov 2018

    ILYAS MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 2409
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1069/2017

    Leave was refused because the Applicant's complaints were vague and not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator lawfully considered COI, reached conclusions on state protection and internal relocation that were not Wednesbury unreasonable, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the Applicant had been given sufficient opportunity to present his case; additionally the Applicant unreasonably delayed applying for legal aid.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Non-refoulement screening
    • Country-of-origin information (coi)
    • Procedural fairness
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
    • State protection

  • 21 May 2018

    ESMEREZ MARIA NIEVA GELITO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 1061
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL743/2017

    The Court found the Director and the Adjudicator were properly acquainted with the law and facts, considered relevant COI, reasonably concluded the loan shark was not a state actor and there was no state acquiescence, and that reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available; their processes met the high standards of fairness required in non-refoulement cases and their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave for judicial review was refused.

    • State acquiescence
    • Country-of-origin information (coi)
    • Internal relocation
    • Non-refoulement
    • Procedural fairness
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness