Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review leave threshold

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

SREE BIPAN CHANDRA DAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1451/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on vague, template-like grounds lacking requisite particulars; the Board conducted a full, reasoned assessment of credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and the claim was not reasonably arguable.
23 Apr 2026

VELASCO GRACE EWAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1347/2022

The Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; the Board's adverse credibility findings were lawful, the assessed risk was low and internal relocation and state protection were realistically available in the Philippines, therefore there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
27 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 996
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL34/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any valid public law ground; the Board's factual and COI assessments were within its province and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. The Board permissibly concluded the dispute was private, there was no intent to harm amounting to torture or serious ill-treatment, and internal relocation was available; therefore the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
20 Mar 2026

DO THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2135/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to present a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success; although the court considered the Board's finding on severity of harm may have been open to challenge, the Board's uncontested finding that internal relocation was viable independently justified dismissal of the non-refoulement claim.
20 Mar 2026

GALVEZ MA THERESA SOMOLOSTRO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL923/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars to show any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Director or the Board; the Director and Board reasonably assessed the risk as low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and there was no prospect of success; the Applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return to the Philippines, reinforcing dismissal of the leave application.
19 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1600
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL757/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding and the conclusions on low localized risk and availability of internal relocation were adequately reasoned and not open to lawful challenge, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings of inconsistency, lack of credibility and absence of evidential basis for the alleged risks were open to the Board and there was no established error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its decision; state protection and internal relocation findings were sustainable.
8 Jan 2026

MOHIDEEN BAWA MOHAMED RAFEEK ALISA MOHAMED NIYAS MOHAMED NAWSAR ALISA MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHAMMED LATHIF ALISAS MOHAMMED IBRAHIM LATHIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2062/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence (delay, false identity, inconsistencies), and the Director and Board reasonably concluded that any risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
7 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1174/2025

The applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success because his grounds were bare assertions without supporting evidence and did not demonstrate legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
24 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5640
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1506/2020

Leave was refused because the Form 86 advanced no reasonably arguable grounds of public law challenge; on anxious scrutiny the TCAB/NRCPO had lawfully and rationally assessed credibility, risk and internal relocation within its primary fact‑finding province; procedural requirements were followed and no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality was shown such as to justify leave.