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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings; the Board's rejection of his evidence and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6009
Parties
Applicant: Jiwan 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
17 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL2081/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk State Protection +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jiwan Kumar

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness or irrationality in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture, death or CIDTP on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable defenses to non-refoulement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings; the Board's rejection of his evidence and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

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