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

UDDIN ZIA 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 arguable legal ground; the Board's findings that the applicant's claims were unsubstantiated and that the risk on return was low were rational and within the Board's fact‑finding responsibility; there was no demonstrated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 382
Parties
Applicant: Uddin Zia; 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
4 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL1145/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, CIDTP, Persecution, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk CIDTP Persecution +3 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uddin Zia

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 Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in its assessment of evidence and country information
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of torture or CIDTP if the applicant is returned to Bangladesh
  3. 3 Whether the state would be involved or fail to provide protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Board's findings that the applicant's claims were unsubstantiated and that the risk on return was low were rational and within the Board's fact‑finding responsibility; there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed