ULLAH ASAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ULLAH ASAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that there was no real risk of serious harm, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and its reliance on COI were within its fact‑finding discretion and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting interference by judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 79
Parties
Applicant: Ullah Asad; 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
3 January 2025
Case Number
HCAL1725/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP State Protection +4 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ullah Asad

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 unfairly in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture and persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to consider rights under Article 2 and Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that there was no real risk of serious harm, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and its reliance on COI were within its fact‑finding discretion and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting interference by judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed