Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asylum/refugee law

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

EMMA ASMAWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1229/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appealing to the Torture Claims Appeal Board under s37ZR(b) and had not undergone the second-tier Unified Screening Mechanism; there was consequently no legal or procedural basis for judicial review of the Director's decision, which had properly assessed the risk as low and identified state protection and internal relocation as available.
3 Nov 2025

AHAMAD MD RAJU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1093/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were within its fact‑finding province and not amenable to supervisory intervention.
16 Sept 2025

SYED SULTHAN MOHAMED THASTHAGEER v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL757/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the grounds were generic, vague and unparticularised, did not disclose any reasonably arguable public law error (error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality) in the NRCPO decision, and the NRCPO had properly considered the relevant COI, state protection and internal relocation issues; moreover the Director's prior decision was not susceptible to judicial review after the appeal steps pursued in the circumstances, so no realistic prospect of success was shown.
12 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1018
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL303/2019

Leave was refused because the Board and Director applied the correct legal tests, relied on credible COI, the applicant failed to produce objective evidence to establish foreseeable, real and personal risk on any applicable ground, procedural fairness was observed and there was no legal error or irrationality warranting judicial review.
31 Mar 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1338/2018

The application for leave was refused because it was out of time with no good reason to extend time; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by the record, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, the substantive case lacked reasonable prospects of success, and therefore extension and leave were unjustified.
11 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL744/2017

The court held that the Director and the Adjudicator had properly considered the relevant issues including state acquiescence, country-of-origin information and internal relocation, provided adequate reasons when read together, and reached conclusions that were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked realistic prospects of success and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
20 Apr 2018

AGAMA GEORGE HINNEH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 790
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL257/2017

No arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness was identified in the Director's or Board's decisions; the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on grounds of torture, CIDTP, Article 2/3 HKBOR or persecution and leave to apply for judicial review was therefore refused.
26 Jan 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL359/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the TCAB/adjudicator conducted a full rehearing, made a careful credibility finding rejecting the applicant as not genuine, applied correct legal principles to torture, CIDTP, persecution and right to life, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success.