PERAL MOHAMMAD ABDUL SATHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

PERAL MOHAMMAD ABDUL SATHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board applied the correct legal principles, validly served notice and lawfully determined the appeal in the applicant's absence; its adverse credibility and risk findings were within its fact-finding remit and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6308
Parties
Applicant: Peral Mohammad Abdul Sathar; 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
19 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL251/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (decision on Papers and Oral Submissions)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Service of Process, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Procedural Fairness Credibility Findings +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peral Mohammad Abdul Sathar

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 (decision on Papers and Oral Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedurally in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of persecution, torture or arbitrary deprivation of life on return to India
  3. 3 Whether the Board lawfully determined the appeal in the applicant's absence and whether notice was validly served

Ratio Decidendi

The Board applied the correct legal principles, validly served notice and lawfully determined the appeal in the applicant's absence; its adverse credibility and risk findings were within its fact-finding remit and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.