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

NAVEED MUHAMMAD 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's proposed grounds were vague, not particularised and not reasonably arguable; the Board applied the correct legal tests, observed a high standard of fairness, and its factual findings on credibility, risk from PPP and internal relocation were not vitiated by any public law error.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5889
Parties
Applicant: Naveed Muhammad; 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
12 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL2239/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (order 53 R 3)
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; amendment to Form 86 granted to identify the Board's decision dated 24 September 2020 as the subject decision
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, BOR Article 2 Risk, Judicial Review Leave Test, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement BOR Article 2 Risk Judicial Review Leave Test Credibility Findings +1 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naveed Muhammad

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 / Decision on Leave (order 53 R 3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted to challenge the Board's decision dated 24 September 2020
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed public law errors (error of law, procedural unfairness, irrationality) in its handling of the applicant's BOR 2 claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's pleaded grounds are sufficiently particularised and reasonably arguable at the leave stage

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's proposed grounds were vague, not particularised and not reasonably arguable; the Board applied the correct legal tests, observed a high standard of fairness, and its factual findings on credibility, risk from PPP and internal relocation were not vitiated by any public law error.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; amendment to Form 86 granted to identify the Board's decision dated 24 September 2020 as the subject decision

Orders

  • Leave granted to amend Form 86 by amending the subject decision to the Board's Decision dated 24 September 2020
  • Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board's Decision dated 24 September 2020 is dismissed