MUHAMMAD AZAM AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MUHAMMAD AZAM AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility finding was supported by oral evidence and reasons, and internal relocation rendered the claimed risk non‑substantial.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 181
Parties
1st Applicant: Muhammad Azam; 2nd Applicant: Azam Umair Ali; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1474/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Claim Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Azam

1st Applicant

Azam Umair Ali

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board or Director committed error of law or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether there is a real and substantial risk of torture, death or persecution on return to Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility finding was supported by oral evidence and reasons, and internal relocation rendered the claimed risk non‑substantial.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.