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

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

The Board correctly applied the law to the BOR 2 risk ground, made sustainable factual findings which did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant's Form 86 failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success, compounded by an unexplained delay; therefore leave is refused and the leave application is dismissed.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 2663
Parties
Applicant: Gurung Dhan Maya; 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
26 June 2025
Case Number
HCAL988/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Leave Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, BOR 2 Risk, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement BOR 2 Risk Judicial Review Leave Stage Procedural Fairness +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurung Dhan Maya

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 / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in finding BOR 2 inapplicable to the applicant's asserted risk
  2. 2 Whether the Board's factual findings were procedurally unfair or irrational
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's Form 86 adequately pleaded grounds and particulars and made full disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Board correctly applied the law to the BOR 2 risk ground, made sustainable factual findings which did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant's Form 86 failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success, compounded by an unexplained delay; therefore leave is refused and the leave application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Leave Application be dismissed.