Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

1951 refugee convention article 33

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1573/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully found state protection in Indonesia and no foreseeable, real, personal and present risk of torture or other ill-treatment; those findings fell within the Board's fact-finding remit and did not disclose legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
10 Apr 2026

CABRISTANTE MEL VALERIE CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1541/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's Form 86 failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds or disclose material facts, the Board's decision displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the application was filed one year late with no explanation so no extension of time was justified.
10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1665
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1732/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise grounds or make full and frank disclosure in Form 86, the Board's adverse factual findings were within its province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended judicial review challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1171/2025

Because the Board dismissed the applicant's appeal in his absence without determining the merits on the papers, thereby arguably breaching the high standard of fairness and being potentially unreasonable and procedurally unfair, and because the applicant's intended judicial review is reasonably arguable, the court will extend time despite a seven-year delay and grant leave to apply for judicial review on the stated grounds, subject to the applicant filing and serving an originating summons within 14 days.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1240/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that, although threats were proven, there were no substantial grounds for risks of torture, CIDTP, violation of right to life or persecution on return to Indonesia.
27 Jan 2026

SALKA CASNITI BT KARJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL621/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably concluded the threats were not evidence of a real and substantial risk, state protection and internal relocation were available, and the applicant provided no particulars on leave and later confirmed she wished to return to Indonesia, so there was no prospect of success.
27 Nov 2025

TRAN CHI DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5711
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL711/2021

The application was dismissed because the delay of three years and five months was inordinate; the applicant's ignorance of procedural rules did not justify extension; the intended judicial review disclosed no arguable merits as no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified in the Director's and Board's decisions which lawfully relied on credibility findings and reasonable internal relocation; accordingly there was no prospect of success and time was not extended.
10 Nov 2025

DINH QUANG TRUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5107
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars and therefore were not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably found low risk, credibility defects, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified; applicant later affirmed it was safe to return.
3 Nov 2025

NAVEED HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1086/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness and could not show a realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was viable; the court will not overturn primary fact‑finding absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4426
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1291/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead reasonably arguable and particularised grounds with a realistic prospect of success; portions attacking the Director's decision were not susceptible to review once the TCAB/NRCPO had heard the appeal; the TCAB/NRCPO's decision survived enhanced scrutiny as it contained reasoned findings on credibility, evidence, risk of harm, state protection and internal relocation and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision.