AHMAD HASHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMAD HASHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: his grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence and did not show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that risks were remote, state protection...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2790
Parties
Applicant: Ahmad Hashir; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1466/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (bor Article 2), CIDTP (bor Article 3), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee/asylum Law Non‑refoulement Torture Right to Life (bor Article 2) +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Hashir

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in dismissing the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Board relied improperly on country of origin information without adequate regard to the applicant's personal evidence
  3. 3 Whether risks of torture, BOR Article 2 or Article 3 CIDTP or persecution were engaged

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: his grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence and did not show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that risks were remote, state protection and internal relocation were viable, and that the Board's decision was sustainable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • No order made on the applicant's separate challenge to the Director's Decision as it was superseded by the Board's Decision