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

ASHFAQ 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 identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence, and no error of law or breach of fair procedure was shown.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1848
Parties
Applicant: Ashfaq 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 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL790/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights (bor 2 and BOR 3), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Hong Kong Bill of Rights (bor 2 and BOR 3) +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashfaq 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 / Considered on the Papers; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Adjudicator's decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established real/personal risk under torture provisions, BOR 2 or BOR 3 or persecution under Article 33
  3. 3 Whether the application for judicial review was improperly a rehearing of merits

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence, and no error of law or breach of fair procedure was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.