Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of administrative decisions

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6333
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1173/2025

The application was struck out because it constituted an abuse of the two-tier administrative scheme for torture/non-refoulement claims: the applicant failed to pursue the statutory petition to the Board and sought judicial review of a Director's decision that, under the established authorities, is not properly susceptible to judicial review once the Board process exists and when a BOR 3 finding is final, thereby precluding an arguable BOR 2 claim.
15 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4706
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL828/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong, section 37ZF deems the torture/non-refoulement claim withdrawn on departure, nothing remained to be determined and any grant of relief would be otiose and serve no practical purpose.
8 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1232/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground, provided no evidence to undermine the Board's findings (including that there was no BOR 3 risk), and thus had no realistic prospect of success; absence of BOR 3 risk precluded an arguable BOR 2 claim and the new documents did not materially advance the case.
2 Sept 2025

VU XUAN VAN 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3896
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2193/2024

The court accepted the applicant's sworn statements that his circumstances in Vietnam had changed and that his withdrawal was voluntary and informed, and therefore granted the applicant's application to withdraw the permission to apply for judicial review, concluding the appeal board's decision stands as final and binding.
25 Jul 2025

BUI THI TUOI 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2111/2023

The court allowed the withdrawal because the applicant's affidavit demonstrated she had resolved the matters in Vietnam, no longer faced risk, wished to return, had voluntarily applied for return, and thus her decision to withdraw was informed, voluntary and made with full knowledge of the consequences, entitling her to withdraw the leave application.
18 Mar 2025

SUMON G M AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1278/2023

The court allowed the withdrawal because the applicants personally confirmed the withdrawal was voluntary, they demonstrated understanding of the consequences including that the Board's dismissal would remain final and that they may be refouled, satisfying the court's requirement to ensure informed consent to withdrawal.
6 Jan 2025

王寬裕對高等法院聆案官廖文健先生 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1166/2024

The court refused leave because the applicant's challenge to the hearing officer's dismissal of his legal aid appeal was not reasonably arguable and lacked realistic prospects of success; judicial review is not an alternative route to re‑argue a statutory appeal under the Legal Aid Ordinance and is limited to review on illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness.
28 Oct 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2882
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL623/2022

The court allowed the application to withdraw the leave application because the applicant affirmed the withdrawal was voluntary, understood the consequences including that the Board's decision would remain final and that he may be refouled, and wished to return; on that basis withdrawal was permitted.
31 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 692
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL54/2022

The application was dismissed because the Board had no record of the alleged decision (it did not exist), the applicant had not availed himself of the available appeal remedies within the prescribed 14-day period for earlier notices, and the present proceedings constituted an abuse of process and were not bona fide.
28 Sept 2018

RE MONA

Citation

[2018] HKCA 623
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/2018

The Court refused leave because the applicant's claims were case-specific personal circumstances already considered by the Director and the Board, did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484, and there was no legal basis to disturb the merits of the administrative decisions.