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

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

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; adverse credibility findings by the Director and Adjudicator were open on the evidence; the claim was a private debt dispute with no evidence of state involvement or real risk of torture or death on return; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1217
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Faheem; 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
27 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL707/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused) on Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Asylum, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Asylum Judicial Review +2 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Faheem

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 / Leave Application (refused) on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established an arguable case of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness to obtain leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator acted irrationally or unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real, personal and substantial risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life on return

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; adverse credibility findings by the Director and Adjudicator were open on the evidence; the claim was a private debt dispute with no evidence of state involvement or real risk of torture or death on return; accordingly there was no realistic 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.