Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights article 2

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1086/2020

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any realistic or arguable ground of review, including any child-specific issue that the Board had failed to consider; the Board's factual findings that the threats were not credible and that state protection in Nepal was available were within its fact-finding remit; non-compliance with Order 80 r.2 was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the 2nd applicant's application, therefore the supervisory court must not substitute its own findings and must dismiss the leave application.
14 Nov 2025

NANIK SUSANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 863
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV357/2020

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review or any error of law by the Deputy Judge; accordingly there was no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge's refusal to grant leave.
13 Nov 2025

RE LE DUC HUU

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1003
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP20/2025

The application for extension of time was refused because, although the delay was minimal, the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness and the intended appeal was unarguable and therefore extension would be futile.
17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4426
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1291/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead reasonably arguable and particularised grounds with a realistic prospect of success; portions attacking the Director's decision were not susceptible to review once the TCAB/NRCPO had heard the appeal; the TCAB/NRCPO's decision survived enhanced scrutiny as it contained reasoned findings on credibility, evidence, risk of harm, state protection and internal relocation and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision.
26 Feb 2025

RE NGUYEN DUC HAO

Citation

[2025] HKCA 183
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV269/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review; the Deputy Judge correctly found the claimed risk did not meet the minimum severity for non-refoulement, properly assessed the limited weight of hearsay evidence and applied the correct standard of appellate review, so there was no error of law or material misdirection warranting reversal.
27 Jan 2025

RE SHAHINUR ALAM

Citation

[2025] HKCA 73
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV414/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review or to show any error of law or failure to consider relevant matters by the Judge or the Board; bare assertions without particulars do not meet the threshold for leave.
9 Jan 2025

RE RASWI alias RUYATI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 58
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV284/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or provide sufficiently particularised, reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review; the Judge did not err in refusing leave and the decision was not plainly wrong.
29 Oct 2024

RE HARIS MOHAMMED

Citation

[2024] HKCA 980
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV278/2024

The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds or particularize errors of law in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings and decision showed no legal error or procedural unfairness and thus there was no basis to grant leave or disturb the refusal.
29 Oct 2024

RE CAMARA IDRISSA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 978
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2024

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's adverse credibility finding and did not provide reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review with sufficient particularity.
2 Sept 2024

RE OSUJI ONYEKACHI LOUIS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 832
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP206/2023

Extension of time refused because the applicant offered no acceptable explanation for the delay and the intended appeal had no prospect of success; granting an extension would be futile.