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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground showing a realistic prospect of success; the Board's assessment of credibility, state protection and internal relocation fell within its fact-finding province and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5337
Parties
Applicant: Daniel; 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 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL1120/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Prohibition of Torture, Article 2 Right to Life, Article 3 CIDTP, Refugee Convention Article 33, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Prohibition of Torture Article 2 Right to Life Article 3 CIDTP +4 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel

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 the Board erred in law, committed procedural unfairness or reached an irrational decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real prospect of success on substantive non-refoulement/torture/Convention and HKBOR claims
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation assessments were lawful and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground showing a realistic prospect of success; the Board's assessment of credibility, state protection and internal relocation fell within its fact-finding province and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed