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

MOHAMMAD ASHFAQUE 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 supporting evidence, he sought to raise a new factual matter (digital identity card) that was not put to the Board, the Board made explicable adverse credibility findings and concluded internal relocation and state protection were viable, and therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1364
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Ashfaque; 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 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL211/2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision Refusing Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Ashfaque

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision Refusing Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in dismissing the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant may raise new factual matters (digital identity card) before this Court
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation and state protection are viable for the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking supporting evidence, he sought to raise a new factual matter (digital identity card) that was not put to the Board, the Board made explicable adverse credibility findings and concluded internal relocation and state protection were viable, and therefore the applicant had 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
  • Application dismissed