AFZAAL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AFZAAL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board reasonably assessed the facts, credibility and COI, legitimately found the matter to be a personal dispute with available state protection and internal relocation, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality or any reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3267
Parties
Applicant: Afzaal Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL290/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Standard
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Asylum and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP State Protection Internal Relocation +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afzaal Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law, acted procedurally unfairly or reached an irrational decision in rejecting non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (BOR 3) or arbitrary deprivation of life (BOR 2) or persecution under Article 33 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Availability and viability of state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board reasonably assessed the facts, credibility and COI, legitimately found the matter to be a personal dispute with available state protection and internal relocation, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality or any reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.