ALAM MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

ALAM MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director correctly applied the law, their findings that the risk to the applicant was low, that the ill-treatment did not meet the minimum severity for Article 3/torture, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were supported by evidence and were not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable; the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospects of success.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2154
Parties
Applicant: Alam Mohammed; 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
16 August 2024
Case Number
HCAL1233/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused and Application Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 CAT, Article 2 BOR, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standards, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Asylum/non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 CAT Article 2 BOR +5 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alam Mohammed

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 and Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real and personal risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (BOR 3)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of arbitrary deprivation of life (BOR 2)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director correctly applied the law, their findings that the risk to the applicant was low, that the ill-treatment did not meet the minimum severity for Article 3/torture, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were supported by evidence and were not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable; the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed