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

GHAFFAR 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 Board's findings that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of harm or killing, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were not shown to be errors of law, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant had no reasonable chance of success on the proposed judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 883
Parties
Applicant: Ghaffar 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
8 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1423/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Papers; Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ghaffar 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 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had an arguable case warranting leave to apply for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's findings that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of harm or killing, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were not shown to be errors of law, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant had no reasonable chance of success on the proposed judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed