Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment of evidence and country of origin information

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2388
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL136/2022

The applicant failed to identify a reasonably arguable public law ground: his allegation of unfairness was general and lacked particulars; he had the opportunity to give evidence and answer questions before the Board; the Board lawfully assessed the evidence and COI and was entitled to reject the non-refoulement claim; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, therefore leave is refused.
29 Apr 2026

RE SABIR HUSSAIN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 672
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV134/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient particulars any error in the Leave Decision; his allegations were general, unsupported and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention, and therefore there was no basis to reverse the judge’s refusal of leave.
15 Apr 2026

KHALID MEHMOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 535
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV840/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify or substantiate any error in the judge's refusal to grant leave; the grounds advanced were bare allegations without particulars and did not constitute viable grounds of appeal entitling relief by judicial review.
17 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1489
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL337/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to particularize or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board had conducted a hearing and provided comprehensive reasons; the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable and lacked realistic prospects of success.
10 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1170
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL285/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board held a hearing, gave adequate reasons and reasonably rejected the Applicant's unsubstantiated contentions, and the challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
27 Feb 2026

PAREKH SANJAYKUMAR BABUBHAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 229
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV906/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable or particularised errors in the Judge's refusal of leave; applying the established approach in Nupur Mst and Re Kartini, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention.
3 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2390/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board gave adequate reasons and was entitled to find the Applicant's case inherently implausible given his refusal to give evidence; the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
12 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL558/2020

The applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board provided adequate reasons and its conclusion that there was no real risk met the enhanced Wednesbury standard in non‑refoulement cases; therefore the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.