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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced broad, vague grounds without particulars; the Board's adverse credibility finding was supported by detailed reasons after oral hearing; no legal error or procedural unfairness was established; the risk was localized and reasonable internal relocation in Pakistan was available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1483
Parties
Applicant: Faheem Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL443/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Article 3 HKBOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, State Acquiescence, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Article 3 HKBOR (cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) +5 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faheem Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in its adverse credibility finding
  3. 3 Whether the decision-maker failed to consider state acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced broad, vague grounds without particulars; the Board's adverse credibility finding was supported by detailed reasons after oral hearing; no legal error or procedural unfairness was established; the risk was localized and reasonable internal relocation in Pakistan was available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.