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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable grounds in Form 86, the Board's factual findings were unchallenged by any demonstrated public law error (error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality), and therefore there were no realistic prospects of success to justify granting leave.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6144
Parties
Applicant: Andi; 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
19 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL1388/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Dismissed on Paper
Outcome
The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed and Form 86 is amended on the court's own motion.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Claims Judicial Review Leave to Apply +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andi

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 Dismissed on Paper

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision involved error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of serious harm if refouled

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable grounds in Form 86, the Board's factual findings were unchallenged by any demonstrated public law error (error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality), and therefore there were no realistic prospects of success to justify granting leave.

Court Disposition

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

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.