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

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

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds or provide material evidence; the Board’s factual findings that the applicant did not substantiate a BOR 2 risk and that state protection/internal relocation were viable involved no error of law, procedural...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3365
Parties
Applicant: Gulfam; 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
12 August 2025
Case Number
HCAL392/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Determination of Leave Application (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk to Life (hkbor Art 2), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Findings of Fact, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Evidence and Disclosure
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk to Life (hkbor Art 2) Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Standard of Review +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulfam

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Determination of Leave Application (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant raised any arguable public law grounds to justify leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant substantiated a BOR 2 risk to life and whether state protection and internal relocation were viable

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds or provide material evidence; the Board’s factual findings that the applicant did not substantiate a BOR 2 risk and that state protection/internal relocation were viable involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore were not susceptible to judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Form 86 to be amended on the court's own motion to name the Director of Immigration as interested party
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed