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

BASHIR 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 had no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully relied on the applicant's refusal to answer as damaging to credibility under s37ZD, the Board's findings that the applicant failed to establish his claim were not shown to be legally defective, and the availability of state protection/internal relocation was a valid basis for dismissal.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4088
Parties
Applicant: Bashir 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
23 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1058/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave (application Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Credibility Findings +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bashir Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave (application Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board lawfully took the applicant's refusal to answer into account as damaging to credibility under section 37ZD of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Board's factual findings that the applicant failed to establish his claim were Wednesbury/unlawful or misdirected and therefore susceptible to judicial review
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were appropriately considered and found available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully relied on the applicant's refusal to answer as damaging to credibility under s37ZD, the Board's findings that the applicant failed to establish his claim were not shown to be legally defective, and the availability of state protection/internal relocation was a valid basis for dismissal.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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