Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights (bor 2)

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

KHAN SANJEEV v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2464
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1226/2021

The court concluded there was a reasonably arguable case because the Director may have committed error of law or procedural unfairness by failing to assess the applicant's risk under BOR 2 when refusing permission to make a subsequent claim under s37ZO; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was granted to enable full consideration of that arguable error.
20 May 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1469
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1712/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced no arguable ground of law; the Board lawfully and reasonably found the violence arose from a private monetary dispute, did not amount to torture, persecution or BOR2/BOR3 breaches, and state protection was available; the late allegation of a murder occurring after the Decision could not be used to invalidate the Decision and should be pursued as a subsequent claim under s37ZO, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
19 Mar 2019

RE KULDIP SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 294
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2018

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the points about lack of representation and prejudice had been addressed and found insufficient, and new fact-sensitive grounds not raised earlier cannot support leave.
17 Jul 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1537
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL659/2017

The adjudicator lawfully and reasonably determined the BOR 2 appeal on the papers without an oral hearing because the applicant had previously had a hearing before the same adjudicator, the only additional material was hearsay and insubstantial, there were no disputed facts or new credible evidence requiring oral testimony, and there was no real risk to life; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

KHAN SANJEEV v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

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

RE KULDIP SINGH

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