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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on absence of sufficient evidence, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were lawful and rendered the proposed judicial review without a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2395
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Jamil; 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
15 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL1122/2019
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, Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Persecution, Credibility Findings, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Irrationality, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp) +7 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Jamil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing the non-refoulement/torture/refugee claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of right to life on return
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were justified

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on absence of sufficient evidence, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were lawful and rendered the proposed judicial review without a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.