SHAKEEL MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAKEEL MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the NRCPO's decision; the NRCPO's adverse credibility and factual findings fall within the Board's primary function and may not be disturbed by the court on judicial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1321
Parties
Applicant: Shakeel Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL1065/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Notification of Decision on Leave Application
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended to name Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as putative respondent and Director of Immigration added as putative interested party.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Amendment of Pleadings, Credibility Findings, Premature Public Law Challenge
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Leave Stage Procedural Amendment of Pleadings 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shakeel Muhammad

Applicant

Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Notification of Decision on Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the correct decision-maker/respondent was identified on Form 86
  2. 2 whether the NRCPO decision contained errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 whether the court should reopen credibility and factual findings of the administrative body

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the NRCPO's decision; the NRCPO's adverse credibility and factual findings fall within the Board's primary function and may not be disturbed by the court on judicial review absent specified legal defects. The court amended the Form 86 to identify the correct respondent and added the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party but dismissed the leave application on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended to name Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as putative respondent and Director of Immigration added as putative interested party.

Orders

  • Form 86 amended to name the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent and to identify the NRCPO decision dated 24 August 2021 as the decision sought to be reviewed and the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party.
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.