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

SEEWIBOON KUNTHIDA 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 show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's factual findings (no risk of harm, internal relocation viable, state protection available) were supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2413
Parties
Applicant: Seewiboon Kunthida; 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
6 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1415/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage — Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (cidtp), 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review — Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) +5 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seewiboon Kunthida

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 Stage — Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture/persecution claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success on judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Board's factual findings (no physical harm, no threats, never met creditor, internal relocation viable, state protection available) were irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's factual findings (no risk of harm, internal relocation viable, state protection available) were supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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