IMRAN MUHAMMAD v. YUNG YIU WING, AN ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

IMRAN MUHAMMAD v. YUNG YIU WING, AN ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; there was no objective evidence of state involvement or acquiescence; the Board's adverse credibility findings (reinforced by the applicant's refusal to testify) were rational and within its fact-finding remit; and reliable COI supported availability of internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1787
Parties
Applicant: Imran Muhammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Yung Yiu Wing; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL45/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional and Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 HKBOR Internal Relocation Credibility Findings Judicial Review Leave

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Muhammad

Applicant

Yung Yiu Wing

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in assessing the risk of torture/Article 3 harm
  2. 2 Whether there was state acquiescence or collusion by police warranting non-refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Pakistan was reasonably available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars; there was no objective evidence of state involvement or acquiescence; the Board's adverse credibility findings (reinforced by the applicant's refusal to testify) were rational and within its fact-finding remit; and reliable COI supported availability of internal relocation, 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.