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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any realistic or arguable ground of review, including any child-specific issue that the Board had failed to consider; the Board's factual findings that the threats were not credible and that state protection in Nepal was available were within its fact-finding remit; non-compliance with Order 80 r.2 was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the 2nd applicant's application, therefore the supervisory court must not substitute its own findings and must dismiss the leave application.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5880
Parties
1st Applicant: Gurung Puspa; 2nd Applicant: Gurung Anuj; 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
9 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL1086/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refoulement, Bill of Rights Article 2, Bill of Rights Article 3, State Protection, Child Specific Considerations, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Refoulement +6 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurung Puspa

1st Applicant

Gurung Anuj

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board failed to consider child-specific non-refoulement grounds for the 2nd applicant
  2. 2 Whether the Director/Board erred in finding state protection available in Nepal
  3. 3 Whether threats by the husband established a BOR 2 (right to life) risk or other non-refoulement risks

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any realistic or arguable ground of review, including any child-specific issue that the Board had failed to consider; the Board's factual findings that the threats were not credible and that state protection in Nepal was available were within its fact-finding remit; non-compliance with Order 80 r.2 was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the 2nd applicant's application, therefore the supervisory court must not substitute its own findings and must dismiss the leave application.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for the applicants to apply for Judicial Review against the Board's 2nd Decision refused
  • Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2nd applicant's application a nullity