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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board was entitled to take a different view based on the evidence and its findings were within its fact-finding remit.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2701
Parties
Applicant: Sandeep Masih; 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
13 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL2910/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (notification)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Proof, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Internal Relocation +4 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandeep Masih

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 (notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in its assessment of evidence and applied an unduly high standard of proof
  2. 2 Whether the Board breached procedural fairness in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to properly assess the viability and practicability of internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board was entitled to take a different view based on the evidence and its findings were within its fact-finding remit.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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