Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 2 and article 3

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1421/2025

The application for extension of time is refused because the leave application was filed more than three months after the Board's Decision and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on the merits; the Board's factual findings (no genuine and substantial risk, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation) were within its province and did not disclose error of law or procedural unfairness, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
1 Apr 2026

BUI THI THAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1690
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1651/2021

The immigration officer reasonably concluded there was no significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success; absence of a hearing did not render the procedure unfair because no specific issues requiring clarification were identified, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
29 Jul 2024

MUNTIANIK YUSUF AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1885
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1180/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because applicants failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on low severity of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not shown to be legally flawed, and no child-specific non-refoulement grounds were identified that had been missed due to lack of representation; non-compliance with Order 80 r 2 was a mere irregularity and did not invalidate the 2nd applicant's application.
12 Dec 2023

AVTAR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3202
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL317/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the assessments on low risk and on internal relocation were within lawful bounds and not susceptible to judicial review as a rehearing.
4 Aug 2023

PARAMJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1076/2020

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was justified because the applicant was over 13 months late with no satisfactory explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable grounds of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, and the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return; accordingly there was no prospect of success and no good reason to extend time.
7 Mar 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL740/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were within its assessment province and did not give rise to a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
2 Dec 2021

SINGH NEERAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL142/2019

Leave and extension were granted because the Board, when refusing late filing under s37ZT, failed to take into account the merits of the appeals as required by s37ZT(2)(b), and some of the Board’s findings on inordinate delay were Wednesbury unreasonable in the circumstances of a detained appellant; enhanced scrutiny applies in non-refoulement contexts.
3 Aug 2020

SARR YAHYA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1679
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL513/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than eight months late, gave no satisfactory reason for the delay and advanced no reasonably arguable ground of review; the Board and Director had not committed any identifiable error of law or procedural unfairness in their credibility and risk assessments, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
13 May 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1780/2018

Extension of time to apply for leave was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant could not demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board lawfully evaluated the evidence, made adverse credibility findings within its remit, and judicial review cannot be used to re-assess factual findings of the primary decision‑makers.
7 Jan 2020

MD ALI AKBER MORAD v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 101
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1324/2018

Leave was granted because it is reasonably arguable that the Board erred in law by failing to take account of the merits of the Applicant’s intended appeal when deciding under s.37ZT(3) whether to allow late filing, a point with sufficient arguability to justify judicial review leave.