BABUL MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

BABUL MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's Decision demonstrably contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its assessment of facts, COI, state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2626
Parties
Applicant: Babul Mohammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1003/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application — Dismissed
Outcome
On the court's own motion the putative respondent's name amended to Torture Claims Appeal Board; the applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Burden and Standard of Proof, Country of Origin Information, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee and Asylum Law Judicial Review Non‑refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Procedural Fairness +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babul Mohammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application — Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant identified arguable legal grounds for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed errors of law in assessing the non‑refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's Decision demonstrably contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its assessment of facts, COI, state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

On the court's own motion the putative respondent's name amended to Torture Claims Appeal Board; the applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Orders

  • On the court's own motion amend name of putative respondent to Torture Claims Appeal Board
  • The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed