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

ROHMAH 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 raise any arguable ground of public law error, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings on credibility, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were matters of fact and not shown to be irrational or vitiated by legal error.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1692
Parties
Applicant: Rohmah; 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
25 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL309/2026
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Article 2 Right to Life, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Article 2 Right to Life Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohmah

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)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision involved error of law
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Board's factual findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise any arguable ground of public law error, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings on credibility, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were matters of fact and not shown to be irrational or vitiated by legal error.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's application for leave dismissed