IJAZ MUHAMMAD v. GRACE MA, ESQ, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

IJAZ MUHAMMAD v. GRACE MA, ESQ, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant presented broad, vague and unparticularised grounds lacking reasonable arguability; the Board's adverse credibility finding was rational, supported by the evidence and properly reasoned; no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; and the Director and Board reasonably concluded the risk was localized and internal relocation in Pakistan was a viable alternative, so there was no prospect of success in judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1353
Parties
Applicant: Ijaz Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Grace Ma, Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL659/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (application for Leave) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture), Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture) Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ijaz Muhammad

Applicant

Grace Ma, Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (application for Leave) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board misdirected itself in law by requiring past torture to infer future torture risk
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to consider or properly weigh relevant and up-to-date Country of Origin Information
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose from late delivery of the hearing bundle or inadequate legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant presented broad, vague and unparticularised grounds lacking reasonable arguability; the Board's adverse credibility finding was rational, supported by the evidence and properly reasoned; no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; and the Director and Board reasonably concluded the risk was localized and internal relocation in Pakistan was a viable alternative, so there was no prospect of success in judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.