SAENG IN SUGANDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SAENG IN SUGANDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably found the claim to be a private monetary dispute with low-intensity past ill-treatment, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the Applicant did not present a proper ground for judicial review.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2112
Parties
Applicant: Saeng In Suganda; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL756/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 3, HKBOR Article 2, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Judicial Review Standards
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 3 +7 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saeng In Suganda

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faces a real risk of torture, death or persecution on return to Thailand
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in Thailand is reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably found the claim to be a private monetary dispute with low-intensity past ill-treatment, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the Applicant did not present a proper ground for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.