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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground or realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings that the threats were verbal, risks unsubstantiated or very remote, state protection available and internal relocation viable were not shown to be legally flawed, irrational or procedurally unfair.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 837
Parties
Applicant: Irawan Dedi; 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
9 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL1281/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hkbor Article 3), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hkbor Article 3) +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irawan Dedi

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 Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success to obtain judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board made errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in assessing risk of torture, BOR 2/BOR 3 risks and persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were correctly assessed as viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground or realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings that the threats were verbal, risks unsubstantiated or very remote, state protection available and internal relocation viable were not shown to be legally flawed, irrational or procedurally unfair.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Applicant's application dismissed.