Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 33 refugee convention (non-refoulement)

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6247
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL64/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s findings; the Board’s factual conclusions (assaults not amounting to torture, lack of state involvement, viable internal relocation) were not shown to be legally erroneous and judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of refoulement determinations.
11 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1339/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available fell within its fact-finding province and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention.
5 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1305/2019

Leave was refused because the Board\u2019s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were viable fell within its fact-finding remit and were not shown to involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
13 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 267
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL53/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings and therefore had no realistic prospect of success.
2 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1426
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1023/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific, reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the TCAB had conducted a rehearing thereby insulating the Director's original decision from review; the Adjudicator properly applied the law, conducted a fair rehearing, made credibility findings supported by evidence and COI and there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
26 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1348
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1655/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision; the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence and the decision was eminently reasonable.
23 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1332
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1576/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no reasonably arguable basis: the TCAB had reheard the appeal making the Director's decision not susceptible to review; the Adjudicator correctly applied the law, fairly conducted the rehearing, made a credibility finding supported by the evidence and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness to ground judicial review.
13 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL583/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal or procedural error in the Director's and the Board's decisions; both bodies lawfully concluded the risk was localized and could be addressed by internal relocation and state protection, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
19 Dec 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL838/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to particularise or establish any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness by the Adjudicator; the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably applied the correct legal tests to a simple family-matter factual matrix and his decision was open on the facts; moreover the Director's decision was not reviewable after the TCAB appeal process had been exhausted.
27 Apr 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 883
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL914/2017

The judge found that on the facts the Director and the Board reasonably concluded there was a very low risk from the local antagonist, that state protection and internal relocation were available, that the applicant failed to particularise his complaints about COI and failed to establish procedural unfairness from late disclosure or lack of interpretation, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success in the proposed judicial review application; accordingly leave was refused.