DAS RADHA MOHAN V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2024] HKCFI 2208 Court of First Instance 23 August 2024 • HCAL494/2020 • 21 min read
7 cases cited (0 HK, 7 foreign) Cited by 8 cases

Judges (1)

Parties (3)

Case Significance

Das Radha Mohan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 2208 is a Court of First Instance decision dated 23 August 2024. The applicant, a Bangladeshi Hindu who had served as a BNP ward president, sought leave for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeal Board's decision affirming rejection of his non-refoulement claim, which was based on fear of Awami League members who had attacked him and burnt down his shop. Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai found no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success, and leave to apply for judicial review was refused. The decision cites Busto Jocelyn Manuel v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 839, and has itself been cited in later non-refoulement matters, including Rashed Joarder alias Rashed Rashedul Islam Rashed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 3062, Ghulam Naveed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 3916, and Hussain Tajammal v. Director of Immigration and Another [2025] HKCFI 5515.

What was the basis of the non-refoulement claim in Das Radha Mohan ([2024] HKCFI 2208)?

In Das Radha Mohan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 2208, the applicant, a Bangladeshi Hindu and former BNP ward president, feared Awami League members who had attacked him and burnt down his shop.

What did the court decide in Das Radha Mohan [2024] HKCFI 2208?

Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai found no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success in Das Radha Mohan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 2208, and refused leave to apply for judicial review.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (7)

HK (7)
(2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 [2018] HKCA 14 [2018] HKCA 524 [2022] HKCA 471 [2023] HKCA 1378 [2024] HKCFI 839

Cited By (8)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 8 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2024] HKCFI 2208)