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

UBONLONG PHATCHARIN 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 identify any specific legal ground demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, did not show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were within its province.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 820
Parties
Applicant: Ubonlong Phatcharin; 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
16 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL1188/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused at Notification Stage
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), CIDTP (hkbor Article 3), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Refugee Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubonlong Phatcharin

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 Refused at Notification Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to judicially review the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were irrational or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific legal ground demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, did not show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were within its province.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed