MUHAMMAD JAMIL V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Muhammad Jamil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 1647 concerned a Pakistani applicant, a Pakistan People's Party supporter who feared harm from a member of the rival PML(N), who sought to re-open a non-refoulement judicial review that he had earlier been given leave to withdraw. The Court of First Instance, on 4 July 2024, granted leave to re-open the application and dealt with the matter on paper, but found no realistic prospect of success in challenging the Torture Claims Appeal Board's decision; leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
The case generated further litigation: the same parties returned before the Court of Appeal in Muhammad Jamil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2026] HKCA 93, and the Court of First Instance decision has also been referred to in other non-refoulement applications, including Das Kamal Kisna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 2834 and Mohammad Sana Ullah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 628.
What was the outcome of Muhammad Jamil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office ([2024] HKCFI 1647)?
In Muhammad Jamil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 1647, the Court of First Instance granted leave to re-open a withdrawn non-refoulement judicial review but found no realistic prospect of success, refusing leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision.
Did Muhammad Jamil's case proceed beyond the Court of First Instance ([2024] HKCFI 1647)?
Yes. The same parties returned before the Court of Appeal in Muhammad Jamil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2026] HKCA 93, following the Court of First Instance's 2024 refusal of leave for judicial review reported at [2024] HKCFI 1647.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Cited By (4)
Citation influence
HKLII records this judgment as cited by 4 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.
Related cases
Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.
Read on HKLIISource: HKLII ([2024] HKCFI 1647)