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

RONY MD 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 arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation fell within its fact-finding remit and were not vitiated by legal error, irrationality or unfairness.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 323
Parties
Applicant: Rony Md; 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
15 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL1231/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, CIDTP, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), Persecution Under Refugee Convention, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review (leave)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk CIDTP +6 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rony Md

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 erred in law in its assessment of risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk to life engageable under Article 2 HKBOR
  3. 3 Whether treatment met threshold for CIDTP under Article 3 HKBOR

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation fell within its fact-finding remit and were not vitiated by legal error, irrationality or unfairness.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

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