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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success; careful anxious scrutiny disclosed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO's credibility findings and risk...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5437
Parties
Applicant: Rashid Rashad; 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
21 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL1439/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (bora Article 2), Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman Treatment (bora Article 3), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Judicial Review Leave Test, Wednesbury Irrationality, Procedural Fairness, Credibility and Risk Assessment
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (bora Article 2) +6 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashid Rashad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the TCAB/NRCPO decision was affected by procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether there was an error of law in the TCAB/NRCPO decision
  3. 3 Whether the TCAB/NRCPO decision was irrational or failed the enhanced Wednesbury test

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success; careful anxious scrutiny disclosed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO's credibility findings and risk assessments, so the decision stands.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Form 86 amended on the court's own motion to name Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent and Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed