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

MIAH RAJON 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 failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse findings on credibility and lack of documentary evidence were within its fact-finding remit, there was no evidential basis for the asserted risks, state protection and internal relocation were found viable, and the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without particulars raising an arguable error of law or procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2520
Parties
Applicant: Miah Rajon; 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
HCAL1601/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refoulement, Asylum, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Refoulement +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miah Rajon

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 (decision on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a real risk of torture, CIDTP or death if applicant returned to Bangladesh
  2. 2 Whether applicant faced persecution within the meaning of Article 33 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion or failed to afford required care to a self-represented litigant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse findings on credibility and lack of documentary evidence were within its fact-finding remit, there was no evidential basis for the asserted risks, state protection and internal relocation were found viable, and the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without particulars raising an arguable error of law or procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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