Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asylum/refugee protection

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 974
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1367/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection was available were within its fact-finding province and not irrational, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
12 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1091/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was viable were supported by the record and within the Board's fact-finding remit, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
17 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2546
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1164/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection/internal relocation were within its fact‑finding remit and did not meet the high threshold for judicial review, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
7 Nov 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1062/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board made no error of law or procedural unfairness and its adverse credibility and risk findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.
17 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL235/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that the risk was low, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were reasonable and not open to successful Wednesbury challenge, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
23 Apr 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1054
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL422/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's findings; the Board's conclusions on credibility, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were open to it and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success.
31 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1904/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground or reasonable prospect of success: the Board did not err in its findings that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and not credible, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, thereby negating the asserted risks of torture, CIDTP or persecution.
14 Jun 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL484/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator made supported credibility findings, there was no demonstrable real risk of torture, persecution, BOR2 or BOR3, state protection and internal relocation were available, procedural requirements (including timely service of the bundle) were met, the applicant failed to show prejudice from lack of counsel or language difficulties, and the Board's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable nor affected by legal error or procedural unfairness.