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

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

Leave was refused because (1) as a matter of statutory and appellate authority the Director's decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued (Re: Moshsin Ali), and (2) the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies and the applicant did not establish procedural unfairness or lack of assistance.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2188
Parties
Applicant: Rasheed Muhammad; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1719/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), Credibility Findings, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Asylum Non Refoulement Torture (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Article 2 HKBOR (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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rasheed Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's decision is susceptible to judicial review after an appeal to the Board
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision was procedurally unfair or tainted by lack of legal or language assistance
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's credibility findings were justifiable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because (1) as a matter of statutory and appellate authority the Director's decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued (Re: Moshsin Ali), and (2) the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies and the applicant did not establish procedural unfairness or lack of assistance.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed