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

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

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds in the Form 86 or at the hearing, the Board's factual findings rejecting the applicant's evidence were reasonable and free of public law error, the Board applied the law correctly including on state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4361
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Morshed; 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
26 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1010/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (filtering) Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review Leave, Risk Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Leave Risk Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Morshed

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 (filtering) Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board failed to conduct sufficient inquiry into country of origin conditions
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to give reasons or sufficient basis for concluding no BOR 2 (right to life) risk
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to consider psychological strain and threats to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds in the Form 86 or at the hearing, the Board's factual findings rejecting the applicant's evidence were reasonable and free of public law error, the Board applied the law correctly including on state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Form 86 be amended on the court's own motion.
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.