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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review or to disclose material facts; the TCAB/NRCPO's decision was reached after appropriate consideration and did not disclose procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to warrant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5435
Parties
Applicant: FAISAL Muhammad; Putative 1st Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative 2nd Respondent and Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL1337/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered and Dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge (notification)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended by the Court to correct identification of parties.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Judicial Review Leave Stage, Wednesbury Unreasonableness (enhanced Scrutiny), Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Judicial Review Leave Stage Wednesbury Unreasonableness (enhanced Scrutiny) +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FAISAL Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative 1st Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative 2nd Respondent and Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered and Dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge (notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonably arguable grounds to grant leave for judicial review of the TCAB/NRCPO decision
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB/NRCPO decision contained errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to vitiate it
  3. 3 Whether the Director of Immigration's decision remained susceptible to judicial review after the appellant pursued an appeal to the TCAB/NRCPO

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review or to disclose material facts; the TCAB/NRCPO's decision was reached after appropriate consideration and did not disclose procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to warrant intervention; additionally the Director's decision was not susceptible to review after the applicant had pursued the statutory appeal to the Board.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended by the Court to correct identification of parties.

Orders

  • Form 86 amended on the Court's own motion to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative 1st Respondent and to name only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed