MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions under challenge; the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings and conclusion on internal relocation were within a range of reasonable decisions and did not disclose...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6248
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Ashraf; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL68/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Cap.115), Article 2 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (right to Life), Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (cidtp), Refugee Convention Article 33 (non Refoulement), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Cap.115) Article 2 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (right to Life) Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (cidtp) +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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Ashraf

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review — Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture if returned (Part VIIC Immigration Ordinance Cap.115)
  2. 2 Whether return would violate Article 2 (right to life) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights
  3. 3 Whether return would violate Article 3 (prohibition of CIDTP) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions under challenge; the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings and conclusion on internal relocation were within a range of reasonable decisions and did not disclose grounds warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.