AKHTAR MUHAMMAD SAEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AKHTAR MUHAMMAD SAEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board's decision contained no error of law, no procedural unfairness and its factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, so the applicant lacked a realistic prospect of success.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2145
Parties
Applicant: Akhtar Muhammad Saeed; 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
15 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1074/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Asylum, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR +5 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akhtar Muhammad Saeed

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the Board's factual findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of torture or death on return (Article 3/HKBOR)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's decision contained no error of law, no procedural unfairness and its factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, so the applicant lacked a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed