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

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

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any extension requested and no explanation for delay; on the merits the applicant failed to advance any specific, reasonably arguable grounds and the Board's findings that the applicant lacked credibility, that threats were unlikely to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 405
Parties
Applicant: Asfaque 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
22 January 2025
Case Number
HCAL2024/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused / Application Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Convention Against Torture, Refugee Protection, Delay and Extension of Time, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Convention Against Torture Refugee Protection Delay and Extension of Time +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asfaque 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 / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was filed promptly and within the 3 month time limit
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success to challenge the Board's decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board committed an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in affirming the Director's refusal of non-refoulement protection

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any extension requested and no explanation for delay; on the merits the applicant failed to advance any specific, reasonably arguable grounds and the Board's findings that the applicant lacked credibility, that threats were unlikely to be effectuated, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful, rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly there was no basis for judicial review and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed