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

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

Leave was refused because the adjudicator applied the correct legal tests to the applicant's evidence, made justified adverse credibility findings, and concluded that even if the evidence were accepted it did not establish a real risk of CIDTP, persecution or breach of the right to life; the decision was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2147
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Hafiz; 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
20 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1678/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Risk to Life, Refugee Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk to Life +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Hafiz

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 / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB/adjudicator erred in law or acted Wednesbury unreasonably
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture/CIDTP on return to India

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the adjudicator applied the correct legal tests to the applicant's evidence, made justified adverse credibility findings, and concluded that even if the evidence were accepted it did not establish a real risk of CIDTP, persecution or breach of the right to life; the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and the applicant's claim was not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.