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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to advance any valid legal ground challenging the Board's decision, only sought another opportunity to address the adjudicator, and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that state protection and internal relocation were available did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1822
Parties
Applicant: Panisa; 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
1 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1426/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non‑refoulement Torture/cidtp State Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panisa

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 / Decision on Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success warranting grant of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in finding state protection available and internal relocation viable
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's decision process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to advance any valid legal ground challenging the Board's decision, only sought another opportunity to address the adjudicator, and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that state protection and internal relocation were available did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed