Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Internal relocation and state protection

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL683/2023

The Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify grounds and make full disclosure in Form 86, did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings, and the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable; the applicant subsequently sought withdrawal and there was nothing outstanding requiring further adjudication.
10 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL353/2021

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors or make the required full and frank disclosure in Form 86; the Board's factual findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were within its exclusive domain and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so the challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
4 Feb 2026

KHAN RAJA QAISAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 543
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL333/2021

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation and the intended judicial review lacks reasonable arguability: the Board's 18 September 2020 decision involved permissible findings on credibility and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown; therefore no extension of time is warranted and leave is refused.
19 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 330
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL493/2022

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director's assessment that state protection and internal relocation were available and that the claim lacked realistic prospects was a factual determination free of public law error; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was not reasonably arguable and is dismissed.
24 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6035
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL695/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground or error of law, and the TCAB decision was lawful and reasonable on its findings that internal relocation and state protection were viable; family circumstances do not alter the non-refoulement assessment.
13 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4665
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL827/2020

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were open to it and not susceptible to public law interference.
30 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2014/2023

The Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the intended judicial review had no realistic prospects of success and therefore the leave application is dismissed while the applicant's request to withdraw is refused (court proceeds to determination rather than leaving the action at large).
2 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3960
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL218/2025

The Board's factual findings that the applicant's claims were not credible and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's grounds were vague and unsupported and she failed to advance arguable legal grounds at the leave hearing, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused though a short extension of time for filing was granted.
29 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1455
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL163/2020

The Board applied the law correctly, made permissible findings on credibility and risk, identified effective state protection and internal relocation, and no public law errors were shown; the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds in Form 86 and his challenge was not reasonably arguable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed (withdrawal allowed as applied).
17 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 969
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1958/2023

The application for leave is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board applied the law correctly and its factual findings were open to it, so no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review existed; the Court granted leave to withdraw the application and amended Form 86 on its own motion.