AKHTAR MUSAMMAT SAJNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AKHTAR MUSAMMAT SAJNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicants' claims were bare allegations unsupported by evidence, the Board conducted a proper hearing and made reasoned fact-based findings that there was no realistic risk to the mother or child and state protection and child welfare/education were available; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review and leave is refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1999
Parties
1st Applicant: Akhtar Musammat Sajna; 2nd Applicant: Haque Md Ismail; 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
15 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL680/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Cidtp), Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +3 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akhtar Musammat Sajna

1st Applicant

Haque Md Ismail

2nd 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)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a realistic prospect of success to obtain judicial review of the Board's 2nd Decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board complied with public law requirements in its decision-making
  3. 3 Whether factual findings of the Board were irrational or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' claims were bare allegations unsupported by evidence, the Board conducted a proper hearing and made reasoned fact-based findings that there was no realistic risk to the mother or child and state protection and child welfare/education were available; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review and leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2nd applicant's application a nullity