Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave application

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1424/2021

The Applicant failed to identify any valid or reasonably arguable public law ground; the Board's factual findings and assessment of COI, state protection and internal relocation were within its province and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
1 Apr 2026

DOAN THI THUY HANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 567
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV199/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence and she failed to identify any error in the judge's legal assessment that the Board's decision was not unlawful, procedurally unfair or irrational; therefore the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1273
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL923/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to plead any arguable grounds or make full and frank disclosure on Form 86, the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on its face, and the Applicant's unexplained six‑week delay did not justify exercising the discretion to extend time given the lack of merits.
23 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 958
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL627/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant's assertions were unsupported by particulars or evidence, the TCAB had properly considered the evidence and applied correct legal principles, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such as would give rise to a reasonably arguable case for judicial review.
14 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 274
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1726/2024

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time with no application for an extension and, on anxious scrutiny, the Board's decision was free of legal error, procedural unfairness and irrationality; the applicant's case lacked reasonable prospects of success and thus did not satisfy the threshold for grant of leave.
19 Dec 2025

羅便臣 v. 香港特別行政區政府入境事務處人事登記處處長郭俊峯先生

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2669/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to identify any arguable public law grounds in breach of Order 53 r3, and because no reasonably arguable public law wrong by the Commissioner was shown; additionally, the HKIC is a mere identity document that does not of itself create enforceable rights, so mandamus was not a proper remedy on the materials.
26 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5672
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1344/2020

The Board correctly applied the law and observed a high standard of fairness; its factual findings that the applicant faced no real risk of serious harm and that state protection/internal relocation were available were not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success and thus leave to apply for judicial review is refused; the Form 86 is to be amended to correct respondent/ interested party designations.
26 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5668
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1326/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead grounds and disclose material in Form 86, and the Board's factual findings and application of law showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so the challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
17 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5430
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1602/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB's 2nd TCAB Decision; the TCAB had applied the correct legal principles, considered the evidence and country information, and properly concluded there was no BOR2 risk to the Applicant's life.
20 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1371/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or affidavit, and on rigorous anxious scrutiny the TCAB/NRCPO decision showed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality; its findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within the decision-maker's province and would inevitably defeat non-refoulement relief.