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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions (fabrication, fanciful elements, hearsay) stood, there was no demonstrated legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the case did not satisfy grounds for judicial review; procedural rules permitted determination on paper.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1748
Parties
Applicant: Ullah Muhammad Ubaid; 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
28 June 2022
Case Number
HCAL477/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Considered on Paper and Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP Risk, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk Judicial Review Credibility Findings +4 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ullah Muhammad Ubaid

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 Considered on Paper and Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision is amenable to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions (fabrication, fanciful elements, hearsay) stood, there was no demonstrated legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the case did not satisfy grounds for judicial review; procedural rules permitted determination on paper.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed