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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking particulars or supporting evidence, the Board's Decision contained lawful reasons and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Board's findings on threat, state protection and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 1422
Parties
Applicant: Jaiswal Amit; 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
8 April 2025
Case Number
HCAL1361/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Right to Life, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review Leave Test, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Right to Life +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaiswal Amit

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board/Director erred in law in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faces a real and substantial risk of torture or death by the creditor
  3. 3 Whether state protection in India is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking particulars or supporting evidence, the Board's Decision contained lawful reasons and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Board's findings on threat, state protection and internal relocation were within its fact-finding province and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, and the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application for leave dismissed.