KHAN JAN MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN JAN MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Applicant received invitation to provide further information but failed to do so; both the Director and the Board properly considered all applicable non-refoulement and BOR grounds using reliable COI; they reasonably concluded there was no real risk of torture, persecution or BOR violation and that internal relocation and state protection were available; therefore the applicant had no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 621
Parties
Applicant: Khan Jan Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL218/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3/article 2, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3/article 2 +4 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Jan Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was denied opportunity to submit additional information regarding BOR 2 risk
  2. 2 Whether the Board selectively used Country of Origin Information resulting in procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation alternatives negate risk of torture/persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant received invitation to provide further information but failed to do so; both the Director and the Board properly considered all applicable non-refoulement and BOR grounds using reliable COI; they reasonably concluded there was no real risk of torture, persecution or BOR violation and that internal relocation and state protection were available; therefore the applicant had no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.