Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and risk assessment

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1771
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL334/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any valid public law grounds or realistic prospects of success; the Board's factual and COI-based assessments that there was no past ill-treatment, no substantial real and personal risk on return, that state protection was available and internal relocation viable were within the Board's province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
10 Apr 2026

MTENGA ADLEY, suing by her mother and next friend, OGAL BELINDA ADHIAMBO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL983/2025

The court refused leave because the Board correctly applied the law and key principles, made lawful and rational findings on risk and credibility based on COI and evidence, there was no procedural unfairness or legal error, and the Form 86 failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success.
20 Mar 2026

TA THU YEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL604/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify cogent grounds in the Form 86 and the TCAB decision, after anxious scrutiny, contained no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the evidence was insufficient to show a real risk of serious harm, the TCAB reasonably found state protection and internal relocation were available, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable.
30 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1353/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the only ground advanced (Wednesbury unreasonableness) was not reasonably arguable; the Board's decision that there was no real risk or well-founded fear fell within the reasonable range of conclusions and there was no established error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality justifying judicial intervention.
24 Dec 2025

ANWAR TARIQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1400/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable and particularised grounds enjoying a realistic prospect of success; the substantive findings of the TCAB/NRCPO on credibility and risk fall within the province of the primary decision-makers and disclosed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness sufficient to vitiate the decision; the Director's earlier decisions were not susceptible to judicial review in the absence of exceptional circumstances while the appeal/petition was pending.
26 Nov 2025

NGUYEN DUC QUI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5726
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL577/2022

Leave refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances which, when taken with prior material, would afford the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director lawfully relied on unchallenged prior findings concerning low risk, state protection and internal relocation and committed no legal error or procedural unfairness.
21 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5437
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1439/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success; careful anxious scrutiny disclosed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO's credibility findings and risk assessments, so the decision stands.
21 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1468/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify grounds or make full disclosure; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were factual and not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and therefore the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1489/2020

The court dismissed leave because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review or to show procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO decision; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were within its fact-finding province and did not disclose public law grounds for intervention under the enhanced Wednesbury standard, so leave could not be granted.
15 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4720
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2197/2020

Leave was refused because the Board applied the law correctly, made permissible findings of fact that the risk had dissipated and state protection was available, and the applicant failed to identify any public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality or to present any reasonably arguable challenge with realistic prospects of success.