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

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

Leave refused because the court, after rigorous examination, found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions: the decisions reasonably treated the claim as a private family dispute, identified credibility shortcomings and inconsistencies, reasonably relied on COI indicating available state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant’s grounds were vague and lacked particulars so there was no real prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 776
Parties
Applicant: Naveed Muhammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL456/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR State Protection +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naveed Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director failed to consider relevant Country of Origin Information (COI) or cherry-picked COI
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the appeal process and a failure to afford a proper hearing on BOR2 risk
  3. 3 Whether state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the court, after rigorous examination, found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions: the decisions reasonably treated the claim as a private family dispute, identified credibility shortcomings and inconsistencies, reasonably relied on COI indicating available state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant’s grounds were vague and lacked particulars so there was no real prospect of success on judicial review.