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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed 70 days late without a satisfactory explanation; the Board’s Decision was subject to rigorous anxious scrutiny and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality; factual findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within the Board’s province and the Applicant failed to show reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success; judicial review of the Director’s decision was inappropriate after a de novo Board rehearing and no exceptional circumstances were shown.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 979
Parties
Applicant: Rahman Md Sofiar; 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
12 March 2025
Case Number
HCAL2552/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused (leave Stage)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, BOR Article 2, BOR Article 3, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Time Limit (order 53), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, De Novo Appeal Vs Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture BOR Article 2 +6 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahman Md Sofiar

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 (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused (leave Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Form 86 was filed within the statutory time limit under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for delay
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in affirming the Director’s decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed 70 days late without a satisfactory explanation; the Board’s Decision was subject to rigorous anxious scrutiny and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality; factual findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within the Board’s province and the Applicant failed to show reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success; judicial review of the Director’s decision was inappropriate after a de novo Board rehearing and no exceptional circumstances were shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave dismissed