MONDAL SHILPY ADURI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MONDAL SHILPY ADURI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board’s decision was lawfully reached after adequate procedure and evidence assessment; the applicant failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution or inability/unwillingness of the state to protect the child; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 399
Parties
1st Applicant: Mondal Shilpy Aduri; 2nd Applicant: Hossain Aliyan Ahad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL307/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Refugee Status
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Refugee Status

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mondal Shilpy Aduri

1st Applicant

Hossain Aliyan Ahad

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board’s decision was affected by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Applicant established a well‑founded fear of harm amounting to non‑refoulement protection
  3. 3 Whether a minor could be fairly represented by a parent without legal counsel in these proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Board’s decision was lawfully reached after adequate procedure and evidence assessment; the applicant failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution or inability/unwillingness of the state to protect the child; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused