FRAZ DIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

FRAZ DIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Form 86 and affirmation failed to specify any arguable ground; the applicant did not demonstrate legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness by DoI or TCAB; TCAB's factual findings that the matter was a private land dispute and that internal relocation or sale of land were available...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6141
Parties
Applicant: Fraz Dil; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL70/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (article 2 Bor), Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (article 3 Bor), Refugee Protection (article 33 Refugee Convention), Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality Review, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life (article 2 Bor) Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (article 3 Bor) +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fraz Dil

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Immigration or the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law
  2. 2 Whether the decisions were irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the decision-making

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Form 86 and affirmation failed to specify any arguable ground; the applicant did not demonstrate legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness by DoI or TCAB; TCAB's factual findings that the matter was a private land dispute and that internal relocation or sale of land were available were not shown to be unreasonable; applicant's absence and failure to augment submissions reinforced refusal.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.