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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that creditors lacked intent to kill or torture, that state protection in India was available and that internal relocation was viable were matters of fact within the Board's province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2559
Parties
Applicant: Ali Quresh; 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
15 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1484/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), CIDTP (article 3 Hkbor), Persecution (article 33 Refugee Convention), Judicial Review (leave)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor) +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Quresh

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to challenge the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on grounds of risk from non-state actors

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that creditors lacked intent to kill or torture, that state protection in India was available and that internal relocation was viable were matters of fact within the Board's province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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