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

IMRAN 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 adjudicator’s rehearing and reasons showed no error of law or procedural unfairness, the adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies, and even on the applicant's own account there was no real risk under torture, BOR Article 3, BOR Article 2 or Refugee Convention grounds given available state protection and internal relocation, so the claim was not reasonably arguable nor had a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 679
Parties
Applicant: Imran 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
29 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL420/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non‑refoulement) / Leave Application Refused on Papers
Outcome
Refused leave to apply for judicial review (application not reasonably arguable)
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Persecution, Right to Life, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Country of Origin Information, Internal Relocation and State Protection
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non‑refoulement Torture Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) +7 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non‑refoulement) / Leave Application Refused on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faced real risk of torture under Immigration Ordinance/Convention against Torture
  2. 2 Whether applicant faced risk of CIDTP under BOR Article 3/ICCPR Article 7
  3. 3 Whether applicant faced risk to life under BOR Article 2/ICCPR Article 6

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator’s rehearing and reasons showed no error of law or procedural unfairness, the adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies, and even on the applicant's own account there was no real risk under torture, BOR Article 3, BOR Article 2 or Refugee Convention grounds given available state protection and internal relocation, so the claim was not reasonably arguable nor had a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Refused leave to apply for judicial review (application not reasonably arguable)

Orders

  • Refusal of leave to apply for judicial review dated 29 March 2018