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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead grounds and disclose material in Form 86, and the Board's factual findings and application of law showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so the challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5668
Parties
Applicant: Akram Zeeshan; 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
26 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL1326/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Consideration of Documents Under Order 53 R.3
Outcome
Form 86 amended on the court's own motion; applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave Application, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Findings of Fact, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Form 86 Requirements
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Judicial Review Non Refoulement Leave Application Procedural Fairness Standard of Review +4 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akram Zeeshan

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 / Decision on Consideration of Documents Under Order 53 R.3

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board made errors of law
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or irrationality

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead grounds and disclose material in Form 86, and the Board's factual findings and application of law showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so the challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Form 86 amended on the court's own motion; applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The Form 86 be amended on the court's own motion.
  • The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.