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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant was almost ten months out of time with no good reason to extend the statutory period, and he failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions which reasonably found low risk, available state protection and feasible internal relocation; therefore there was no prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2318
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Jamil; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1303/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Delay/limitation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk +5 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Jamil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was made promptly or time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board committed legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were realistically available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant was almost ten months out of time with no good reason to extend the statutory period, and he failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions which reasonably found low risk, available state protection and feasible internal relocation; therefore there was no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.