Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights articles 2 and 3

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4427
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1297/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Form 86 contained generic, copied and unparticularised grounds that were not reasonably arguable; the TCAB/NRCPO's decision showed no identifiable public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its assessment of credibility, COI, state protection or internal relocation; and the Director's decision was not susceptible to review after the appeal to the TCAB/NRCPO, such that there was no realistic prospect of success.
25 Jun 2025

RE SAHOTA RANDHIR SINGH

Citation

[2025] HKCA 557
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV19/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient particularity any error of law or arguable ground on which leave for judicial review ought to have been granted; the Judge did not err in upholding the Board's factual findings and reasonably refused leave.
25 Jun 2025

RE NUPUR MST AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 583
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV346/2024

The appeals were dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable legal ground to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessments of risk, state protection and internal relocation did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; and the minor's lack of independent legal representation was a mere irregularity given the Board separately considered the minor and no plausible minor‑specific grounds remained.
10 Apr 2025

MA-YOE PHONCHAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2090/2024

Leave was refused because the application was filed more than nine months out of time without any explanation or good reason, the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and there was no prospect of success given the credibility findings and availability of internal relocation.
8 Apr 2025

IFTIKHAR AHMED alias AHMED IFTIKHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1216
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1242/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably assessed the low risk of serious harm, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation, and judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits.
30 Jul 2024

RE NGUYEN VAN TUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 727
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV308/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's credibility-based decision and failed to advance reasonably arguable grounds with sufficient particularity for judicial review; the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave was correct.
27 Feb 2024

RE RANGI NIRVAIR SINGH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 175
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV9/2023

The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error in law or in the Judge's assessment of the Board's findings; the Board's findings that state protection and a fair trial in India were likely and that non-refoulement grounds were not made out were not shown to be wrong, so refusal of leave was correctly upheld.
25 Jan 2024

RE VUONG HONG HA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 93
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP51/2023

The applicant's delay of approximately 3.5 months was unexplained and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success because no error of law or procedural unfairness was identified; therefore an extension of time would be futile and is refused.
11 Sept 2023

AGCAOILI FREDDIE AGCAOILI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2304
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1481/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and material inconsistencies, and the Director and Board reasonably concluded there was no real risk because of lack of recent targeted ill-treatment, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation alternatives; judicial review cannot be used to rehear these factual assessments.
23 Mar 2023

RE CHAUHAN MANISH

Citation

[2023] HKCA 431
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP343/2022

Extension of time refused because the applicant had an inordinate unexplained delay of about ten months, failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's refusal of leave, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success making an extension futile.