MUHAMMAD ASEM ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MUHAMMAD ASEM ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on arguable grounds of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's findings on lack of real or continuous risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 472
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Asem Ali; 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
26 February 2024
Case Number
HCAL1239/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 (prohibition of Torture and Cidtp), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right 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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Asem Ali

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 applicant showed errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision sufficient to justify leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in assessing risk of torture, BOR2 and BOR3 risks and persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were properly assessed as available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on arguable grounds of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's findings on lack of real or continuous risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and supported by evidence and COI, and the procedural complaints did not show unfairness sufficient to found judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's application dismissed