RASHED JOARDER alias RASHED RASHEDUL ISLAM RASHED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RASHED JOARDER alias RASHED RASHEDUL ISLAM RASHED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB/NRCPO had given adequate reasons and its findings on Persecution, BOR 2/3 and Torture risks were not shown to be legally erroneous or irrational under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; and, to the extent the applicant sought to challenge the Director's decisions directly, the two-tier system and lack of exceptional circumstances required dismissal.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3062
Parties
Applicant: Rashed Joarder alias Rashed Rashedul Islam Rashed; 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
31 July 2025
Case Number
HCAL544/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decision (dismissed)
Outcome
Form 86 amended to name proper respondents; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Refugee Law, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Refugee Law Judicial Review +3 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashed Joarder alias Rashed Rashedul Islam Rashed

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 Decision (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review of the TCAB/NRCPO decision should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration's decisions can be directly challenged given the two-tier review system
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or error of law in the TCAB decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB/NRCPO had given adequate reasons and its findings on Persecution, BOR 2/3 and Torture risks were not shown to be legally erroneous or irrational under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; and, to the extent the applicant sought to challenge the Director's decisions directly, the two-tier system and lack of exceptional circumstances required dismissal.

Court Disposition

Form 86 amended to name proper respondents; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Form 86 amended to name Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent and Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party
  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed