Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asylum/refugee status

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1153/2025

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable legal or procedural error in the Board's findings: adverse credibility findings and fact conclusions (no real risk, viability of internal relocation, BOR 2 not engaged) were matters for the Board and not vitiated by error of law or unfairness; a request for another hearing was irrelevant to leave.
1 Dec 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3616
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL974/2022

Leave was refused because the Board conducted a proper assessment of credibility and country information, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, the Board's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
19 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1074
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL206/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; procedural irregularity in Form 86 was rectified but did not alter outcome.
8 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonable/rationality defect in the Board's credibility and fact findings; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
7 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 968
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL575/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, afforded a high standard of fairness, and her factual and credibility findings were open to her and eminently reasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
31 Dec 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1463/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant presented no arguable legal ground: the Board's adverse credibility findings and reliance on COI, state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
4 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1900/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to be legally flawed, and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's assessment that there was no real and substantial risk or that state protection/internal relocation were available.
1 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 317
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL575/2017

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the risk was localized, private and that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to them and did not give rise to a viable judicial review claim.
25 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1342
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL599/2017

The adjudicator's decision was legally sound and factually supported: applicant lacked credibility due to material discrepancies, failed to prove injuries met the statutory threshold for torture, failed to demonstrate a substantial real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or breach of BOR/ICCPR rights, and the availability of State protection and internal relocation undermined non-refoulement claims; grounds lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
22 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL880/2017

Leave refused because the court was not satisfied there was any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: applicant failed to provide particulars of new evidence, had opportunity to present his case and was assisted by counsel at earlier stage and by an interpreter at the Board hearing, and the Board\'s factual assessment (low risk, state protection and reasonable internal relocation) had no obvious legal flaw or unfairness, therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.