KHANOM SUMI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

KHANOM SUMI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Board correctly applied the law under the USM, its factual findings were supported and within its exclusive province, there was no arguable procedural unfairness or legal error, the Applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof of real risk, and the son’s claim did not establish separate child-specific risk sufficient for protection.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3808
Parties
Applicant / 1st Applicant: Khanom Sumi; 2nd Applicant: Uddin Muhammad Sukran; 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 August 2025
Case Number
HCAL832/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused at Hearing
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused in HCAL 2327/2019 and HCAL 832/2023
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Torture/ill Treatment Risk Assessment, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Children's Claims, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Torture/ill Treatment Risk Assessment Judicial Review Leave +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khanom Sumi

Applicant / 1st Applicant

Uddin Muhammad Sukran

2nd 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 at Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in applying the USM criteria
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the screening and appeal processes
  3. 3 Whether the Board's factual findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Board correctly applied the law under the USM, its factual findings were supported and within its exclusive province, there was no arguable procedural unfairness or legal error, the Applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof of real risk, and the son’s claim did not establish separate child-specific risk sufficient for protection.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused in HCAL 2327/2019 and HCAL 832/2023

Orders

  • HCAL 2327/2019 and HCAL 832/2023 are heard together
  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review in both HCAL 2327/2019 and HCAL 832/2023 is refused