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

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

Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's assessment of evidence on torture, CIDTP, Article 2 HKBOR or persecution and therefore has no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1365
Parties
Applicant: Hammad Ali; 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
6 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1449/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused) Notification of Judge's Decision
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Prohibition, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), CIDTP (hkbor Article 3), Persecution (refugee Convention), Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Prohibition Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) CIDTP (hkbor Article 3) +2 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

Hammad Ali

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) Notification of Judge's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's findings on torture, CIDTP, Article 2 HKBOR and persecution were legally erroneous or irrational
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed procedural unfairness in its determination or in the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's assessment of evidence on torture, CIDTP, Article 2 HKBOR or persecution and therefore has no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed