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

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

The leave application was dismissed because the Board had lawfully and rationally considered the evidence and country information, found no persecution/BOR2/BOR3/Torture risk, identified police protection and viable internal relocation, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1143
Parties
Applicant: Rubel Miah 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
10 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL83/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Leave application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Judicial Review (leave), Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Country of Origin Information, Internal Relocation, Refoulement, Bill of Rights Article 2 Risk
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Public Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Judicial Review (leave) +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rubel Miah Md

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense
  2. 2 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  3. 3 Whether the Board breached duties owed to a self-represented appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the Board had lawfully and rationally considered the evidence and country information, found no persecution/BOR2/BOR3/Torture risk, identified police protection and viable internal relocation, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave application dismissed

Orders

  • Form 86 amended to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed