Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Imputed political opinion

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3297
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL724/2020

Leave was granted because the TCAB decision contained potentially material errors of law—notably mischaracterising the applicant's claim as a private dispute and failing to apply legal principles that persecution may be by non-state actors and may involve imputed political opinion—making the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable.
31 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1104/2020

Leave was granted because the court concluded the Applicant’s Grounds (2)–(4) were reasonably arguable: the Board arguably failed to consider imputed political opinion and relevant Sri Lanka COI/GJ guidance and made potentially irrational factual conclusions and inadequate reasons, thereby meeting the threshold for leave under Po Fun Chan.
7 Oct 1997

PHAN DINH HOANH v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD

Citation

PHAN DINH HOANH v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV139/1997

The Court of Appeal held the Board's decision was not legally flawed or Wednesbury irrational and there was no material procedural impropriety; the material before the Board did not disclose matters that, on further consideration, might demonstrate an arguable case for judicial review under the Ho Ming‑sai test, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
24 Jul 1997

PHUNG DAO KHANG v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD

Citation

PHUNG DAO KHANG v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL57/1997

Leave to apply for judicial review and an extension of time were granted because the Board arguably erred and acted irrationally in concluding that conduct (assisting escape; inciting protest) was mere law-breaking without political motive; those arguable errors undermined its finding that the Applicant had not been persecuted and therefore its conclusion on lack of a well-founded fear was impugned.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

PHAN DINH HOANH v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD

PHUNG DAO KHANG v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD