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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed and tested the evidence, made fact-findings within its exclusive province, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (including failure to satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test); the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 327
Parties
1st Applicant (mother): Mago Shyr Adame; 2nd Applicant (son, Minor): Ali Arham; 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
15 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL2080/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave application refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation, Burden and Standard of Proof Under USM, Representation of Minors
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Refoulement/asylum Non Refoulement Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Wednesbury Unreasonableness +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mago Shyr Adame

1st Applicant (mother)

Ali Arham

2nd Applicant (son, Minor)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's process
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed and tested the evidence, made fact-findings within its exclusive province, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (including failure to satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test); the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave application refused

Orders

  • Form 86 be amended on the Court's own motion
  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review is refused