Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time for judicial review

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2188
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1177/2025

The application was refused because it was filed out of time and the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on judicial review given the Board's findings were supported by evidence and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; therefore no good reason to extend time and leave was dismissed.
27 Mar 2026

NGUYEN VAN TRONG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL558/2022

The court refused extension of time and refused leave because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for a many‑months delay, the delay was in the category where leave may be refused irrespective of merits, and the Director's 2022 Notice contained no error of law, was procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
19 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1219
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL402/2022

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed well outside the statutory three‑month period without a satisfactory explanation and, materially, the proposed challenge lacks a reasonably arguable case: the Board's Decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's adjournment request was rightly refused for lack of good reason.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1195
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL519/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review and an extension of time were granted because the TCAB made a fundamental legal error by failing to consider the merits when refusing the late filing of the notice of appeal, and the applicant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success making extension appropriate despite gross delay.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1091
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1307/2025

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the application was filed materially late (beyond the three-month limit), the applicant advanced no substantive or specific grounds to undermine the Board's findings, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's rational fact findings and absence of legal error or procedural unfairness.
3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 999
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1321/2025

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the application for leave because the application was over seven months late, the applicant failed to identify any viable legal ground and did not show a realistic prospect of success such as would justify extension of time; the Board's factual findings (credibility, localized fear, availability of state protection and internal relocation) were not shown to be legally or procedurally defective.
3 Mar 2026

RAJAONARISON SOLONIRINA ALAIN JEAN PARFAIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1004
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1303/2025

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant filed more than six months late and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success in a judicial review of the Board's decision; the Board's findings that there was no real risk from the mother, injuries did not meet BOR3 threshold, and internal relocation/state protection were available were unchallenged on valid grounds, so leave was dismissed.
27 Feb 2026

BAO VAN NGHIA 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 294
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV341/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the substantial delay and failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or arguable ground in the primary judge's decision; the primary judge correctly concluded there was no realistic prospect of success and legitimately relied on credibility and evidential deficiencies.
9 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 836
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1290/2025

Extension of time was refused and the application for leave dismissed because the application was filed more than two months late without sufficient explanation or prospects of success; the Board's decision was supported by findings of lack of evidence on torture, state involvement and inability/unwillingness of state protection, and internal relocation was viable; absence of legal representation did not amount to procedural unfairness or entitlement to automatic relief.
28 Jan 2026

BUI THE VU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 557
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL182/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was brought out of time with no satisfactory explanation for a substantial delay, the intended grounds were bare and unarguable, the Board’s credibility-based rejection of the non-refoulement claim disclosed no legal error or procedural unfairness, internal relocation made protection unnecessary, and there was no prospect of success.