Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cidtp (hkbor article 3)

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1632/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by absence of evidence and were not vitiated by error of law or procedural unfairness, and the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for delay.
20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1643/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success on judicial review; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings and its conclusion that internal relocation was viable were within its fact-finding province and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2384
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1473/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board properly considered the evidence, made findings that risks were unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1365
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1449/2025

Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's assessment of evidence on torture, CIDTP, Article 2 HKBOR or persecution and therefore has no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2189
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1618/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no real risk of serious or fatal harm were not shown to be infected by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the court's role is supervisory and it will not re‑evaluate primary fact finding.
22 Apr 2026

BUI TIEN HOAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1985
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL250/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same grounds as his previously determined claim and failed to demonstrate the significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance; there was no realistic prospect of success, and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of the court process.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1671
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1378/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board made adverse credibility findings and concluded there was no evidence of targeted intent to harm, that state protection was available and internal relocation was viable, and the applicant's grounds were general assertions unsupported by evidence so he had no realistic prospect of success.
3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 998
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1330/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence and she failed to show a realistic prospect of success; absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality the court will not re-examine the Board's factual findings.
27 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2888/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness, did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated and internal relocation was viable were not shown to be irrational.
16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1188/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific legal ground demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, did not show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were within its province.