ALI MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board made defensible findings that the risk was localized, past ill-treatment was of low intensity, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and thus there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2586
Parties
Applicant: Ali Muhammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL1169/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, HKBOR Article 2, HKBOR Article 3, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture HKBOR Article 2 +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real and substantial risk of torture or other serious harm on return to Pakistan
  2. 2 Whether state protection or internal relocation within Pakistan is available and reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board committed legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board made defensible findings that the risk was localized, past ill-treatment was of low intensity, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and thus 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.