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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to the Board on the evidence, and the applicant lacked a reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1206
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Irshad; 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
17 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1713/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Irshad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed legal error in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/refugee/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were open to it
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available such that the non-refoulement risk was not established

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to the Board on the evidence, and the applicant lacked a reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.