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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully and separately considered the mother's and child's claims, made defensible factual findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, and no reviewable public law error was shown; the procedural non-compliance was only a mere irregularity and did not render the child's application null.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 431
Parties
1st Applicant (mother): Ramadhani Ririn; 2nd Applicant (daughter): Pranoto Aozzora Eugine Ghazane; 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
23 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL1276/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (consideration of Documents Only)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Law (persecution), Judicial Review, Children's Procedural Protection
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Law (persecution) Judicial Review +1 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

Ramadhani Ririn

1st Applicant (mother)

Pranoto Aozzora Eugine Ghazane

2nd Applicant (daughter)

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 (consideration of Documents Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board complied with public law requirements and did not commit reviewable error
  3. 3 Whether the Board afforded separate consideration to the child applicant and respected procedural protections

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully and separately considered the mother's and child's claims, made defensible factual findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, and no reviewable public law error was shown; the procedural non-compliance was only a mere irregularity and did not render the child's application null.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Joint application dismissed