MUHAMMAD ABID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MUHAMMAD ABID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of internal relocation were rational, supported by evidence and free of identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness; therefore there were no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review of the Board's non‑refoulement decision.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1186
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Abid; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL188/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Risk of Torture, Article 2 and Article 3 HKBOR, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Risk of Torture Article 2 and Article 3 HKBOR Credibility Findings +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Abid

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness in the Director and Torture Claims Appeal Board decisions
  2. 2 Whether adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within Pakistan was a viable alternative negating non‑refoulement protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of internal relocation were rational, supported by evidence and free of identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness; therefore there were no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review of the Board's non‑refoulement decision.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.