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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Board correctly applied the law, its adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by evidence and common sense, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1020
Parties
Applicant: Pardeep Kumar; 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
13 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL293/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review Credibility Findings Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pardeep Kumar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board made errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established a real risk of serious harm if returned to India
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection in India was available to the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Board correctly applied the law, its adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by evidence and common sense, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.