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

SHAFIQ 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 failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board had lawfully evaluated and accepted the applicant's evidence but found it insufficient to establish serious risk, state involvement, or that state protection or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1211
Parties
Applicant: Shafiq 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
17 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL1847/2018
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 Risk, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (cidtp), Right to Life (bor Article 2), BOR Article 3, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (cidtp) +5 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shafiq 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 the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success on a judicial review of the Board's Decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board or Director erred in law or in procedure such that relief is available
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board had lawfully evaluated and accepted the applicant's evidence but found it insufficient to establish serious risk, state involvement, or that state protection or internal relocation were unavailable; no procedural unfairness or legal error was shown that would warrant judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed