Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review (leave stage)

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

ALAGAR CRISVILYN SANTIAGO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1021/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific or arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's comprehensive decision; the Board had applied the correct legal test, considered evidence and country information, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL260/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, absence of evidence of a real risk, viability of internal relocation and availability of state protection were within the Board's fact-finding discretion and there was no shown error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1530/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 pleaded generic, unparticularised grounds that did not disclose any reasonably arguable case; the application was over eight months out of time and the Applicant failed to show good reason to extend time (including failure to update address and non‑compliance with disclosure duties); and there was no public law basis to vitiate the TCAB/NRCPO's lawful refusal to allow late filing under s.37ZT. The court amended the Form 86 on its own motion to name only the TCAB/NRCPO as Putative Respondent.
13 Apr 2026

TRAN THI MINH PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1770
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL397/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds; the Board and Director properly assessed the evidence and COI, reached rational conclusions (private loan dispute, no evidence of attack, viable internal relocation), and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review.
6 Mar 2026

BAIG MIRZA GHULAM SAMDANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1073
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL908/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify or substantiate any arguable public law ground in Form 86 or by affidavit, failed to make full disclosure, and has not shown that the Board's adverse credibility findings or conclusions about lack of risk, state protection and internal relocation involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the intended challenge had no realistic prospects of success.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 662
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2507/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision, the TCAB's factual and legal conclusions (including availability of state protection and internal relocation) were supported by the evidence, and the application was brought out of time with no sufficient basis for extension of time.
4 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 597
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1859/2025

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Board's decision showed no arguable public law error, the Board applied the law correctly and fairly and reached fact findings not shown to be irrational, and the leave application was about eight months out of time with no explanation so no extension of time was justified.
4 Feb 2026

MAMUN OR RASHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1849/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that the dispute was not political, that state protection and internal relocation were available and that no personal risk was established were rational and within the Board's fact-finding province, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
13 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL693/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify grounds of judicial review and the TCAB decision, which had considered the evidence and applied the correct legal principles, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable.
30 Dec 2025

MD WAHID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6378
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2350/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same grounds as his finally determined previous claim and failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO giving a realistic prospect of success; because the applicant was likely to abuse process, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary and proportionate to prevent further abusive litigation.