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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual assessments (low/localized risk, no reliable evidence of murder, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation) were within its primary evaluative role and not for the court to re-open on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1416
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Amjad; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1383/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, HKBOR Article 3, HKBOR Article 2, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim HKBOR Article 3 +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Amjad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was entitled to free legal representation at appeal before the Board
  2. 2 Whether applicant was denied an interpreter and whether that denial caused unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Board improperly relied on Country of Origin Information or acted with bias

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual assessments (low/localized risk, no reliable evidence of murder, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation) were within its primary evaluative role and not for the court to re-open on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.