Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and findings of fact

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL737/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds, the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant offered no explanation for the delay such that extension of time could be granted; the application was also withdrawn.
7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2459
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL169/2025

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any arguable public law grounds in Form 86 or show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board correctly applied the law and its adverse findings of fact were not vitiated, so the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable.
24 Apr 2026

PHAM DOAN TIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2083
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL128/2022

The Board applied the correct law, observed a high standard of fairness and made fact findings within its province; no public law error was shown, so the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2144
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL120/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or show any public law error; the Board's factual findings (credibility, insufficient severity, availability of internal relocation) did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable.
22 Apr 2026

RE MIA AKASH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 676
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's leave refusal; the Board's factual findings on credibility and availability of internal relocation were open on the evidence and properly considered by the judge.
17 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2035
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1431/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify clear legal grounds in Form 86 and to make full and frank disclosure; the Board's decision displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the contested matters were factual credibility findings for the Board, not for judicial review; the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
15 Apr 2026

EVI FARIDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1272/2021

The Leave Application is dismissed because it was filed 16 days out of time with no satisfactory explanation and, in any event, the intended judicial review lacks merit: the Board's Decision of 25 May 2021 contains no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and its factual and credibility findings are not open to re-assessment on judicial review.
10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1668
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1745/2021

The applicant failed to identify arguable grounds with necessary particulars or verified evidence in the Form 86 and supporting affirmation; the Board's factual findings that rejected the central elements of the applicant's account were within the Board's province and not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success and leave is denied.
30 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2668/2024

Leave refused because the Board's credibility and fact findings were supported by evidence and reasons, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Applicant failed to discharge the burden to prove lack of state protection or entitlement to non‑refoulement under the USM.
27 Mar 2026

VU NGOC SON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL232/2024

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s.37ZO, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Director's factual findings and decision, rendering the intended judicial review not reasonably arguable.