MUSRINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MUSRINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague, lacking particulars and not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board lawfully and rationally assessed a low risk of serious harm, found state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2617
Parties
Applicant: Musrini; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1490/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review in Immigration/non Refoulement Context / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Screening and Appeal Procedures
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Musrini

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review in Immigration/non Refoulement Context / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board/Director erred in law or acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, death or violation of non-derogable rights on return
  3. 3 Whether state acquiescence or failure of protection applies

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague, lacking particulars and not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board lawfully and rationally assessed a low risk of serious harm, found state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.