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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal or procedural error in the Director's or the Board's decisions, the Board's adverse credibility findings were properly made after oral hearings, reliable COI supported availability of state protection and internal relocation, and judicial review...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 303
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Zubair; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL548/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Scope, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Credibility Assessment +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Zubair

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board made errors of law or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, persecution or other non-derogable harm if returned to Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal or procedural error in the Director's or the Board's decisions, the Board's adverse credibility findings were properly made after oral hearings, reliable COI supported availability of state protection and internal relocation, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the factual evaluation absent demonstrable legal error; there was therefore no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused