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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds; the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the Board applied the correct law, so the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2496
Parties
Applicant: Dilir Emrah; 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
HCAL1375/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Leave application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dilir Emrah

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)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's factual findings were vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of right to life if returned to Turkey
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Turkey was reasonably viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds; the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the Board applied the correct law, so the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave application dismissed

Orders

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