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

MUHAMMAD SARFARAZ 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 identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and thus had no realistic prospect of success; the court will not overturn factual findings properly made by the Board.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4267
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Sarfaraz; 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
8 October 2025
Case Number
HCAL1227/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered and Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Prohibition, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (no Cidtp), Part VIIC Immigration Ordinance, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Prohibition Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Sarfaraz

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 Considered and Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness or irrationality in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the facts and evidence establish a real risk of torture, CIDTP, death or persecution if returned

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and thus had no realistic prospect of success; the court will not overturn factual findings properly made by the Board.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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