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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection was available.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2070
Parties
Applicant: Faye Aly; 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
27 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1406/2025
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 and CIDTP, Right to Life (bor 2), Prohibition of Torture and CIDTP (bor 3), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Standard of Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Right to Life (bor 2) +5 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faye Aly

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 or acted irrationally in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement and related human rights claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture/CIDTP) of the HKBOR were engaged

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection was available.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • The applicant's application is dismissed.