Mohammed Naveed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 604/2017[2018] HKCFI 623

Court

High Court CFI

Date15 Mar 2018

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL604/2017

[2018] HKCFI 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 604 of 2017

BETWEEN
	MOHAMMED NAVEED	Applicant
	And
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	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 counsel [ ] in open court;

Order by The Hon Lok J:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused

Observations for the Applicant:

1.This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review challenging the decision of the Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 25 August 2017. In the decision, Mr Kevin Browne (“the Adjudicator”) affirmed the decisions of the immigration officer rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The Applicant has not requested an oral hearing for this leave application.

3.In his supporting affirmation, the Applicant complains that the Adjudicator was in breach of procedural fairness, wrongly exercised the discretion in rejecting his claim, made a decision which was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense and failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant. No specific particulars have been provided to the court to substantiate these allegations and the Applicant just asks the court to review his case.

4.I have carefully considered the written decision of the Adjudicator. In my judgment, the Adjudicator had properly applied the law in reaching the decision. An oral hearing was held, and the Adjudicator had carefully and properly considered the evidence of the Applicant. The Adjudicator had also pointed out to the Applicant some of the issues that he might need to address the Tribunal, and the Applicant was given adequate opportunity to address those issues.

5.Though the Applicant was not legally represented in the hearing, the Adjudicator had properly discharged the duty owed to self-represented claimant in the conduct of the hearing. There was simply no procedural unfairness to the Applicant.

6.As the Applicant’s intended judicial review does not have any prospect of success, I refuse his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

Dated the 15^th day of March 2018

	(Tox Wong)
	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:	Sent/Handed to the Applicant/ the Applicant’s solicitors on 19 March 2018 MOHAMMED NAVEED	Sent/Handed to the Respondent/ the Respondent’s solicitors / such interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the interested parties’ solicitors on 19 March 2018 Torture Claims Appeal Board Ref:. HCAL604/2017 Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) / (Civil Litigation Unit) 2 Department of Justice Director of Immigration Immigration Department
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)).

Form CALL-1