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

ULLAH FAIZ 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 show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's credibility and factual findings (that the case was a family land dispute), and its conclusions on state protection and internal relocation, fell within its fact-finding province and contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3493
Parties
Applicant: Ullah Faiz; 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 August 2025
Case Number
HCAL699/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), Persecution Under Refugee Convention Article 33, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +7 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

Ullah Faiz

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 and Director erred in law or acted irrationally in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to consider state acquiescence or over-relied on country of origin information

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's credibility and factual findings (that the case was a family land dispute), and its conclusions on state protection and internal relocation, fell within its fact-finding province and contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave dismissed