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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, its adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness and internal relocation was viable, therefore no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 180
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Faiz; 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
19 January 2022
Case Number
HCAL539/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (decision on Paper)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +5 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Faiz

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 Refused (decision on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedurally or acted irrationally in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's credibility findings were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in India was a viable option

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, its adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness and internal relocation was viable, therefore no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.