Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

1951 refugee convention article 33 (non-refoulement)

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1647/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by the evidence, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Board reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available; therefore leave is refused.
11 Jul 2024

PACURZA KEMBERLY BIBAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1748
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1131/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, which rationally found low risk of proscribed harm and that internal relocation was reasonable.
3 Apr 2024

NGUYEN BUI LE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 964
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1180/2021

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed that the applicant faced only a localized, low risk arising from a private monetary dispute; credibility findings were sustainable; state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified and there was therefore no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.
7 Sept 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL86/2018

The application for leave is dismissed because the underlying non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director and affirmed by the Board on findings of low risk, available state protection and feasible internal relocation, the applicant failed to provide requested further facts and subsequently sought to withdraw such that there is no live basis for the leave application.
30 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 18
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL170/2018

No reasonably arguable legal or procedural error was established; the Adjudicator afforded a fair hearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached a decision open on the facts; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
7 Sept 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1833
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1114/2017

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Adjudicator properly applied the law, considered evidence and reached conclusions open on the facts, so no realistic prospect of success for judicial review existed.
5 Sept 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1900
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1144/2017

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of legal error, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator lawfully assessed the evidence and resolved credibility issues, their conclusions were open on the facts and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
11 May 2018

WARYAM SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 943
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL805/2017

The judge refused leave because there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the applicant had not shown specific prejudice from lack of counsel or translation, his credibility was generally accepted by the Board, the Board's reliance on COI and findings on state protection were justified, and there was no basis to conclude a realistic prospect of success in judicial review.