ARSHAD MUHAMMAD ALIAS FAISAL ALIAS MUHAMMAD FAISAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ARSHAD MUHAMMAD ALIAS FAISAL ALIAS MUHAMMAD FAISAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

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

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3898
Parties
Applicant: Arshad Muhammad alias Faisal alias Muhammad Faisal; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL660/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Article 3 BOR, Screening and Appeal Process, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation/relocation Alternative, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and Article 3 BOR Screening and Appeal Process Credibility Assessment +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arshad Muhammad alias Faisal alias Muhammad Faisal

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in its credibility findings and use of Country of Origin Information
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the hearing process before the Board
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Pakistan was a reasonable alternative precluding protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and reliance on COI were supported by the record and internal relocation was a reasonable alternative, 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.