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

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

The Board applied the correct legal principles, fairly assessed the evidence and credible COI, made permissible findings of fact that the dispute was private, the mistreatment did not reach the required severity, and state protection/internal relocation were available; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave is refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2420
Parties
Applicant: Gupta Sanjay Kumar; 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
29 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL163/2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness State Protection Internal Relocation +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gupta Sanjay Kumar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in dismissing the non-refoulement appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established a real risk of harm amounting to non-refoulement protection under the USM
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the assessment of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Board applied the correct legal principles, fairly assessed the evidence and credible COI, made permissible findings of fact that the dispute was private, the mistreatment did not reach the required severity, and state protection/internal relocation were available; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Matter determined on papers; oral hearing not held due to non‑attendance and sufficient service.