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

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

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to particularize effective public law grounds and the Board lawfully conducted a rehearing, engaged with the evidence and COI, made supported credibility findings and adequate reasons, and there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would make the intended judicial review reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2233
Parties
Applicant: Ullah Obayed; 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
27 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL232/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 ordered to be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Procedural Fairness, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Risk of Torture, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Judicial Review Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ullah Obayed

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 / Decision on Leave (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board breached procedural fairness by not conducting a rehearing and arriving at its own determination
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense
  3. 3 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to particularize effective public law grounds and the Board lawfully conducted a rehearing, engaged with the evidence and COI, made supported credibility findings and adequate reasons, and there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would make the intended judicial review reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 ordered to be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party

Orders

  • Form 86 be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed