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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were within the Board’s fact-finding province and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2290
Parties
Applicant: Romlah; 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
30 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1402/2025
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Standards
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) +4 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Romlah

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the Board irrationally or unlawfully assessed state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were within the Board’s fact-finding province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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