SANTO v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SANTO v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the NRCPO decision; the NRCPO's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its discretion and supported by evidence, so judicial intervention was not warranted.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5315
Parties
Applicant: Santo; Putative Respondent: Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL1111/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santo

Applicant

Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the NRCPO decision was affected by error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Court should reopen or substitute the NRCPO/TCAB factual findings in absence of legal error
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the NRCPO decision; the NRCPO's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its discretion and supported by evidence, so judicial intervention was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Form 86 be amended to name the NRCPO as the putative respondent
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed