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

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

There was no arguable basis to challenge the Director's or the Adjudicator's decisions: both applied the correct law, considered the evidence, afforded procedural fairness and gave intelligible reasons; the Applicant produced no corroborating evidence to undermine credibility findings and no realistic prospect of success existed on judicial review, so leave was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1915
Parties
Applicant: Binyameen 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
12 October 2018
Case Number
HCAL1159/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Papers; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Asylum Screening, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Asylum Screening Judicial Review +1 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binyameen 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 / Decision on Papers; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 State acquiescence and extended acquiescence
  2. 2 Assessment and weight of evidence and credibility findings
  3. 3 Internal relocation as alternative protection

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable basis to challenge the Director's or the Adjudicator's decisions: both applied the correct law, considered the evidence, afforded procedural fairness and gave intelligible reasons; the Applicant produced no corroborating evidence to undermine credibility findings and no realistic prospect of success existed on judicial review, so leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.