AMJAD MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

AMJAD MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success: the Board's rehearing decision provided adequate reasons, the applicant's factual account was found inconsistent and incredible, there was no evidence of real risk of serious harm and the Board reasonably concluded state protection would be available after considering COI; accordingly judicial review was not warranted.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3151
Parties
Applicant: Amjad Muhammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 August 2025
Case Number
HCAL912/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined (notification of Judge's Decision Following Consideration of Documents and Oral Submissions)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection and State Acquiescence, Country of Origin Information (coi), Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Asylum/non Refoulement Non Refoulement Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness State Protection and State Acquiescence +3 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amjad Muhammad

Applicant

Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined (notification of Judge's Decision Following Consideration of Documents and Oral Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Review's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in failure to consider evidence submitted by the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success: the Board's rehearing decision provided adequate reasons, the applicant's factual account was found inconsistent and incredible, there was no evidence of real risk of serious harm and the Board reasonably concluded state protection would be available after considering COI; accordingly judicial review was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Form 86 be amended on the court's own motion to correctly name the proposed respondents.
  • The Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the 1st Putative Respondent.