Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrationality standard

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2026

LE QUOC DAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 600
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground of judicial review or error in the Judge's dismissal of the leave application, failed to raise grounds below or justify raising them for the first time on appeal, and did not demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's or Director's decisions.
17 Mar 2026

FRAZ DIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 320
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1235/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the Applicant failed to advance any viable grounds showing error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director or the Board or in the judge's refusal of leave; the Director and Board provided adequate reasons; the new Urdu document would not materially alter the outcome in light of the Board's finding that internal relocation in Pakistan was viable; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and the appeal has no merit.
2 Mar 2026

JAGJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 259
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV500/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave; absent any demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, the Court will not disturb the lower court's decision.
26 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 307
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL532/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to identify legal grounds or provide required disclosure and affidavit evidence, and he failed to establish a reasonably arguable case; the TCAB decision showed no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, having lawfully concluded state protection and internal relocation were available.
4 Dec 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3499
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL772/2020

The Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant failed to specify any identifiable legal error or provide supporting evidence; the Board correctly applied legal principles, made permissible factual findings, and observed a high standard of fairness, so the application was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
25 Feb 2022

PANKAJ KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMNT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 283
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV75/2021

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's refusal of leave because the applicant advanced only vague, general assertions without particulars, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and credibility findings and assessments of COI, state protection and internal relocation were within the Board's province and properly made.
20 Oct 2021

RE DISSANAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE SIRIYA DISSANAYAKE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1534
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV340/2021

The Court held the Judge did not err in refusing leave because the Board's adverse factual findings were within its province, the applicant failed to point to any specific legal or procedural error, the evidence contained contradictions, and there was no basis to interfere with the Board's rational decision; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
10 Aug 2021

RE SUKHDEEP SINGH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1121
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP146/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were vague, unsubstantiated and did not raise any arguable point or question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the Board's decision was justified on the evidence and there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal.
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.
6 Sept 1988

WONG LAI-YIK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

WONG LAI-YIK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1189/1988

The Tribunal's decision was a factual determination supported by evidence that the applicant had not been ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for the requisite seven years and was not shown to be illegal or irrational; therefore the court will not interfere and the judicial review application must be dismissed.