MOLLAH MD IBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

MOLLAH MD IBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds amounted to bare assertions without supporting evidence, he failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility finding was a lawful exercise of its fact‑finding function that did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 2273
Parties
Applicant: Mollah Md Ibrahim; 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
30 June 2025
Case Number
HCAL2671/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Procedural Fairness Judicial Review +4 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mollah Md Ibrahim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in its credibility assessment of the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds amounted to bare assertions without supporting evidence, he failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility finding was a lawful exercise of its fact‑finding function that did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Refuse to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's Decision.
  • Dismiss the applicant's leave application.