KHAN SAMIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

KHAN SAMIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that the risks (persecution, torture, BOR 2 and BOR 3) were unsupported, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that COI could be relied upon involved no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality requiring judicial intervention.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 335
Parties
Applicant: Khan Samir; 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
11 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL2093/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Asylum/persecution, Judicial Review (leave), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Asylum/persecution Judicial Review (leave) +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Samir

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 Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or in procedure in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of death or serious harm from his brother (BOR 2 and BOR 3 risks, Torture risk, Persecution risk)
  3. 3 Whether state protection in India is available and internal relocation viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that the risks (persecution, torture, BOR 2 and BOR 3) were unsupported, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that COI could be relied upon involved no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality requiring judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed