BabelCite

Tehseen Safder v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 656/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 March 2018.

3.     In the premises, The applicant has not provided any reasonably arguable grounds to show that the decision to refuse to suspend or rescind the deportation order against him is wrong in law or Wednesbury unreasonable.  The leave application must be refused.

Cites 4 cases

Case No.HCAL 656/2017[2018] HKCFI 481
Court
High Court CFI
Date05 Mar 2018
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 656/2017

[2018] HKCFI 481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 656 of 2017

BETWEEN

Tehseen Safder Applicant
and
Permanent Secretary for Security Putative Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
     NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

    consideration of the documents only;     or
    consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant or counsel [                              ] in open court;

Order by the Honourable Mr Justice Au:

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

There is no overall immigration policy of facilitating family reunion as alleged by the applicant at paragraph 5 of his stated grounds.  It is within the wide discretion of the Permanent Secretary to decide whether or not to rescind or suspend a deportation order, and the court will not interfere lightly.  The mere fact that the applicant has been in Hong Kong for a long time and maintained a family here do not render the decision not to rescind the deportation order Wednesbury unreasonable.  See for examples: PVQ v Permanent Secretary for Security (HCAL 21/2017, 26 October 2017, Chow J); Touray Edrisa v Permanent Secretary for Security (HCAL 91/2016, 15 May 2017, Chow J); Sabir Mohammed v Permanent Secretary for Security (HCAL 114/2015, 27 January 2017, Au J); MI v Permanent Secretary for Security (HCAL 44/2016, 9 May 2017, Chow J).

3.     In the premises, The applicant has not provided any reasonably arguable grounds to show that the decision to refuse to suspend or rescind the deportation order against him is wrong in law or Wednesbury unreasonable.  The leave application must be refused.

Dated the 5th day of March 2018.

(Sunny Ng)
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence



Notes for the Applicant:

If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his solicitors must:		        

a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted(Order 53, rule 4A);

b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and

c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).

   Sent/Handed to the Applicant/
the Applicant’s solicitors on
 05/03/2018
 
Tehseen Safder
The Applicant 		  Sent/Handed to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the interested parties’ solicitors on
05/03/2018
 
Permanent Secretary for Security
The Putative Respondent
Ref: SF(D)9943


Form CALL-1

Cites 4 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Pvq and Others v. Permanent Secretary for Securtiy
HCAL 21/2017
High Court CFI26 Oct 2017
Touray Edrisa v. Permanent Secretary for Securtiy
HCAL 91/2016
High Court CFI10 May 2017
Sabir Mohammed and Another v. Permanent Secretary for Security
HCAL 114/2015
High Court CFI27 Jan 2017
Mi and Anohter v. Permanent Secretary for Securtiy
HCAL 44/2016
High Court CFI09 May 2017