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

SHAIKH KASIM 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 particularise or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board provided adequate reasons, the applicant refused to answer questions at the Board hearing, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5578
Parties
Applicant: Shaikh Kasim; 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
21 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL137/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture (cat), Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Legal Representation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee/asylum Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture (cat) Procedural Fairness Judicial Review +2 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaikh Kasim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularise or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board provided adequate reasons, the applicant refused to answer questions at the Board hearing, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

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