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

JASPREET KAUR 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 and USM standards, made reasonable and lawful findings of fact and credibility based on primarily hearsay evidence, there was no procedural unfairness or legal error and the Decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable so the leave application had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 514
Parties
1st Applicant: Jaspreet Kaur; 2nd Applicant: Gagga Raganpreet Kaur; 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
29 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL172/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined on Paper; Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review — Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Standard of Proof, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review — Leave Wednesbury Unreasonableness +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaspreet Kaur

1st Applicant

Gagga Raganpreet Kaur

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 Determined on Paper; Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Applicant met the burden and standard of proof to establish a real risk of ill-treatment or deprivation of civil rights on return to India
  3. 3 Whether the Board applied the correct legal standards under the Unified Screening Mechanism and afforded procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Board correctly applied the law and USM standards, made reasonable and lawful findings of fact and credibility based on primarily hearsay evidence, there was no procedural unfairness or legal error and the Decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable so the leave application had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused
  • Application determined on the papers (no oral hearing)