BUTT MUHAMMAD USMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

BUTT MUHAMMAD USMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; those decision‑makers properly assessed the evidence, concluded the risk was low, and reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1207
Parties
Applicant: Butt Muhammad Usman; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL1261/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution Internal Relocation +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Butt Muhammad Usman

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board committed error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of non-derogable rights on return to Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Pakistan was a reasonable and available alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; those decision‑makers properly assessed the evidence, concluded the risk was low, and reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.