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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no substantial ground for torture, CIDTP or persecution, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality amenable to judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1853
Parties
Applicant: Arshad Muhammad; 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
5 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL181/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Before Deputy High Court Judge (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Prohibition of Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution/non‑refoulement), Credibility Findings, State Protection and Internal Relocation, Judicial Review (leave)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Non‑refoulement Prohibition of Torture and CIDTP Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution/non‑refoulement) Credibility Findings +2 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arshad Muhammad

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 / Leave Application Before Deputy High Court Judge (notification of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  2. 2 Whether there was any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe the applicant faced torture, CIDTP or persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no substantial ground for torture, CIDTP or persecution, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality amenable to judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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