Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 33 refugee convention

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1162/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and its fact‑based assessment of risk.
17 Nov 2025

NGUYEN THI HAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL225/2022

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the risk was assessed as localized and of low intensity with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available; there was no realistic prospect of success and the Applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return.
22 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3621
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL570/2020

Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review, did not demonstrate procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO decision, and sought to rely on unproduced vague allegations that are inadmissible; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the application dismissed.
30 Jul 2025

FARUK MD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL915/2025

The applicant failed to satisfy s37ZO by demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was not shown to be unlawful or procedurally defective; leave to apply for judicial review is refused; an RPO is justified and made to prevent further abuse of process.
16 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1907
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1287/2021

The Board applied the correct legal principles, afforded a high standard of fairness, and legitimately assessed credibility on written materials after the applicant refused to answer questions; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the leave application lacked realistic prospects and is dismissed.
14 Mar 2024

JAREEN alias JARREEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 770
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL22/2020

Time was extended and leave granted because although the applicant's delay was inordinate, the Board erred in refusing late filing without taking into account the merits of the appeal as a relevant matter under s 37ZT(2)(b); the intended JR was reasonably arguable when assessed against the required threshold and enhanced scrutiny given the potential risk to life/limb, justifying extension of time and grant of leave.
7 Mar 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1434/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were within its fact‑finding province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
14 Dec 2023

TRAN THI THUY LINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL57/2023

Leave was refused because the proposed grounds were vague, lacked necessary particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board made lawful, reasonable findings that any risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated, and the applicant confirmed she wished to return to Vietnam, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
24 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL972/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
9 Mar 2023

ABDUL WAHID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 587
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1269/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to provide any written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO(2), the Director's refusal involved no error of law or procedural unfairness and the intended judicial review had no prospect of success; a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate matters already finally determined and his conduct amounted to an abuse of process, warranting restriction under s27 of the High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdic…