RAJPUT HARMEET AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RAJPUT HARMEET AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings (gang neutralised, state protection available, internal relocation feasible, no separate risk to minors) were not shown to be legally or factually unreasonable, and procedural non‑compliance was properly treated as a mere irregularity rather than rendering the minors' application void.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 702
Parties
1st Applicant: Rajput Harmeet; 2nd Applicant: Kaur Swarnjeet; 3rd Applicant: Harshal; 4th Applicant: Rajput Gurshaan; 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
4 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL1292/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave refused; joint application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection, Procedural Irregularity, Protection of Minors
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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

Rajput Harmeet

1st Applicant

Kaur Swarnjeet

2nd Applicant

Harshal

3rd Applicant

Rajput Gurshaan

4th Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board's fact‑finding on threats and availability of state protection was legally flawed
  3. 3 Whether the minors' lack of separate legal representation rendered their application a nullity

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings (gang neutralised, state protection available, internal relocation feasible, no separate risk to minors) were not shown to be legally or factually unreasonable, and procedural non‑compliance was properly treated as a mere irregularity rather than rendering the minors' application void.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; joint application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.
  • Joint application dismissed.