RAJIB MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The application to withdraw was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant no longer required non-refoulement protection, rendering any grant of leave otiose and without practical effect even if legal errors existed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] HKCFI 6108
Parties: Applicant: Rajib Mohammad; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 9 December 2025
Case Number: HCAL755/2021
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome: Application to withdraw refused; Leave application dismissed.
Legal Topics: Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Withdrawal of Proceedings, Ostensible Mootness, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language: en

Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Withdrawal of Proceedings Ostensible Mootness +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Rajib Mohammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicant's application to withdraw should be allowed
2 Whether the leave application should be granted despite withdrawal attempt
3 Whether the claim had become otiose or served no practical purpose

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to withdraw refused; Leave application dismissed.

Orders

Amend the name of the putative interested party to Director of Immigration
Application to withdraw the leave application refused

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.