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

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

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error; the Board's adverse credibility findings and its conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were rational, procedurally fair and within the Board's primary jurisdiction, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2736
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Naeem; 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
11 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL1435/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused (considered on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave Stage
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Asylum/refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Naeem

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 (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused (considered on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's credibility findings were open to challenge
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error; the Board's adverse credibility findings and its conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were rational, procedurally fair and within the Board's primary jurisdiction, 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