NAVEED MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

NAVEED MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The court granted a short extension of time because the applicant’s brief delay was credibly explained and caused no prejudice, but refused leave because the intended grounds were not reasonably arguable: the applicant failed to provide particulars or evidence to show error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board, and the findings that the dispute was private, lacked state involvement, and that internal relocation was available were adequately supported by COI and evidence.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 224
Parties
Applicant: Naveed Muhammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 February 2018
Case Number
HCAL209/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (application Considered; Extension of Time Allowed But Leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, BOR Article 3 (cidtp), BOR Article 2 (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Extension of Time/undue Delay, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim BOR Article 3 (cidtp) BOR Article 2 (right to Life) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naveed Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (application Considered; Extension of Time Allowed But Leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established good reason to extend time for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or procedurally in rejecting non-refoulement claims (torture, BOR3, persecution)
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted a short extension of time because the applicant’s brief delay was credibly explained and caused no prejudice, but refused leave because the intended grounds were not reasonably arguable: the applicant failed to provide particulars or evidence to show error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board, and the findings that the dispute was private, lacked state involvement, and that internal relocation was available were adequately supported by COI and evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to make the leave application granted (application allowed to proceed out of time)
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused for being not reasonably arguable