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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence, the assessed risk was low, and internal relocation was reasonable, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2008
Parties
Applicant: Akif Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL595/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Claim Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation Judicial Review Leave +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akif Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director made legal or procedural errors warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, ill-treatment or persecution if returned to Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Pakistan is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence, the assessed risk was low, and internal relocation was reasonable, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.