ALI ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the material showed the threat was a private debt dispute with low risk, no evidence of harm, available state protection and viable internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3815
Parties
Applicant: Ali Arshad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 August 2025
Case Number
HCAL15/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Screening and Appeal Process
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee and Asylum Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Arshad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonably arguable ground of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision to justify leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in assessing risk of torture, persecution or violation of non-derogable rights arising from private creditor threats
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within India was a viable alternative negating non-refoulement protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the material showed the threat was a private debt dispute with low risk, no evidence of harm, available state protection and viable internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.