AHMED MUNIR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMED MUNIR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was low, state protection was available and internal relocation viable were within the Board's fact‑finding remit and showed no public law error, and the applicants were legally represented so no additional procedural unfairness arose.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2937
Parties
1st Applicant: Ahmed Munir; 2nd Applicant: Munir Ch Mushraf; 3rd Applicant: Ahmed Amnnah Baggah; 4th Applicant: Ahmed Ch Awees Munir; 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
21 November 2023
Case Number
HCAL825/2019
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 Claims, Judicial Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Judicial Review State Protection +2 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Munir

1st Applicant

Munir Ch Mushraf

2nd Applicant

Ahmed Amnnah Baggah

3rd Applicant

Ahmed Ch Awees Munir

4th 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 applicants demonstrated a realistic prospect of success on judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was low, state protection was available and internal relocation viable were within the Board's fact‑finding remit and showed no public law error, and the applicants were legally represented so no additional procedural unfairness arose.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed