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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on credibility, lack of evidence of torture, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or irrational.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4000
Parties
Applicant: Sadaqat 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 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1128/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Internal Relocation Credibility Findings +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sadaqat 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 / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on credibility, lack of evidence of torture, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or irrational.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused