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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board made factual findings that the risk was low and internal relocation viable, and those findings do not give rise to a realistic prospect of success on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 346
Parties
Applicant: Taslim; 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 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL1234/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), CIDTP (article 3 Hkbor), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Torture Convention Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taslim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in finding no real risk of harm
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in the Board's hearing
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation and state protection were viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board made factual findings that the risk was low and internal relocation viable, and those findings do not give rise to a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application dismissed