ABBAS MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ABBAS MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board and the Director properly applied the law and made a reasonable assessment of the Applicant's non-refoulement claim: the risk was localized, there was no reliable evidence of intent to kill, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and the Applicant's leave grounds were bare, vague and not reasonably arguable; therefore leave is refused.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3243
Parties
Applicant: Abbas Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 August 2025
Case Number
HCAL731/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on Documents and Oral Submissions)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information (coi)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Internal Relocation State Protection +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbas Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on Documents and Oral Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision was Wednesbury-unreasonable or irrational
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to give proper weight to State acquiescence or COI
  3. 3 Whether the Board was procedurally unfair or failed to take into account the Applicant's personal evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Board and the Director properly applied the law and made a reasonable assessment of the Applicant's non-refoulement claim: the risk was localized, there was no reliable evidence of intent to kill, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and the Applicant's leave grounds were bare, vague and not reasonably arguable; therefore leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.