25 Jun 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Board's credibility and state protection/internal relocation findings were open to it and contained no error of law or procedure, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
25 Jan 2019
The appeal is dismissed and leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to lodge a skeleton argument (abandoning the right to oral hearing) and the filed papers disclosed no arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness sufficient to justify leave.
2 Nov 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review: the applicant had been afforded representation and interpretation, the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing and his disbelief and findings were open to him, no prejudice arose from the Director's absence, COI management was not reviewable, and the statutory/precedential thresholds for leave were not met.
14 Sept 2018
No reasonably arguable basis of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness was identified; the Director and the Adjudicator properly applied the law, fairly investigated and assessed the evidence, and their determinations were open to them on the facts; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
9 Feb 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the adjudicator applied the correct legal tests to the accepted facts, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness established, the decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard, the claim was essentially a private land dispute without State involvement, internal relocation was viable, and the application was not reasonably arguable.
25 Mar 2013
Appeals allowed: removal decisions by the Director of Immigration are subject to judicial review; where a claimant asserts a well-founded fear of persecution the Director must determine whether the fear is well-founded and any such determination must meet the high standards of procedural fairness (rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny); the Director may give weight to UNHCR RSDs but cannot simply rely on them without independent assessment.
21 Jul 2011
The Court held that the concept of non-refoulement of refugees has developed into customary international law but has not attained jus cogens; however Hong Kong is not bound in domestic law because the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) demonstrates clear legislative intent to confer an unfettered discretion on the Director which overrides that customary rule; accordingly there is no common law duty requiring the Director personally to conduct refugee status determinations and reliance on the UNHCR for RSD is not unlawful; appeal dismissed.
21 Jul 2011
The Court held that although the concept of non-refoulement of refugees has developed into customary international law, it has not attained jus cogens status and, in any event, the Immigration Ordinance evinces a clear legislative intent giving the Director an unfettered discretion which overrides that customary rule in Hong Kong; Hong Kong was not treated as a valid persistent objector on the basis required but domestic statute governs; the Director's humanitarian practice and reliance on UNHCR for refugee status determination does not create a legal duty to conduct in-house RSD; appeal dism…
21 Jul 2011
Court held that the concept of non-refoulement of refugees has developed into customary international law but has not attained jus cogens; Hong Kong was not found to be a persistent objector but domestic legislation (Immigration Ordinance Cap.115 and legislative history) manifests a clear intent leaving the Director an unfettered discretion to remove persons, thereby overriding any customary international obligation in domestic law; consequently the Director is not legally obliged to undertake refugee status determination personally and reliance on UNHCR procedures is lawful; appeal dismissed.
21 Jul 2011
The Court held that while the concept of non-refoulement of refugees has developed into customary international law, it has not attained jus cogens status and, in any event, clear domestic legislation (the Immigration Ordinance Cap.115) manifests legislative intent to leave removal discretion with the Director and therefore overrides the customary rule in Hong Kong; consequently there is no domestic legal duty requiring the Director personally to undertake RSD or to abandon the established practice of referring claims to UNHCR, and the appeals were dismissed.