Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay/limitation

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1339/2025

Leave was refused and no extension of time granted because the applicant failed to identify grounds or to make full disclosure in Form 86, failed to demonstrate any public law error in the Board's decision (whose factual findings are not displaced absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality), and provided no explanation for the nearly two‑month delay beyond the three‑month limit.
7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2332
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1538/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal errors or public law defects in the Board's decision, the intended challenge had no realistic prospects of success, and the application was out of time by almost six months with no justification so no extension of time was granted.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2068
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL342/2026

Application for extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the application was 10 days late and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that BOR 2 was not engaged meant no arguable legal error; the sexual orientation ground could not be advanced before the Court because it was not raised before the Board.
13 Apr 2026

RE KULDEEP SINGH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 491
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/2026

Appeal dismissed because the applicant sought judicial review of the Director's BOR 2 decision without exhausting available appeal remedies; the leave application was inordinate delayed without explanation and the applicant failed to provide requested materials; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified such that the intended judicial review had no prospect of success.
20 Mar 2026

GILLANI SYED RIZWAN AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1590
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2112/2020

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of over three years and five months was substantial and unexplained, and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospects of success as the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
30 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 497
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1757/2021

The leave application is refused because the applicant failed to plead any arguable public law errors in the Board's factual and credibility findings, the Form 86 did not identify grounds or make full disclosure, the withdrawal of the appeal was properly accepted and final, and the applications were substantially delayed with no explanation so no extension of time should be granted.
29 Jan 2026

TANBIR ALAM v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 89
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1314/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground capable of showing procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the NRCPO decision, the NRCPO validly accepted the applicant's voluntary withdrawal, and the application was brought with undue delay without any good reason to extend time; no public interest justification warranted an extension.
15 Jan 2026

MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1935/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant was inordinate and inexplicably delayed (approximately 3.5 years) in seeking leave, he failed to put forward reasonably arguable grounds with necessary particulars, and there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's determinations including credibility findings and the availability of internal relocation; accordingly there was no prospect of success to justify granting leave.
15 Jan 2026

RANA NARENDRA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF HONG KONG IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 264
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL51/2026

The leave application was refused because it was out of time in relation to the primary 22.5.2025 refusal and, on the merits, the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error: the Director acted within policy discretion, humanitarian considerations are not legally mandatory and their weight is for the Director, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the decision was irrational or without realistic prospect of success.
13 Nov 2025

RE PAKPONGSIRI THIDARUT

Citation

[2025] HKCA 985
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV216/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant provided no acceptable explanation for a five‑month delay in filing the Form 86 to seek leave for judicial review and advanced no particulars showing an arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; accordingly there was no proper basis to extend time and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review as the Board's credibility and risk findings were within its fact‑finding remit.