Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to apply

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2871
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1438/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions (no evidence of land dispute or state involvement and viability of internal relocation) were supported by the record, fell within the Board's fact-finding jurisdiction and disclosed no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention.
20 May 2026

KASFIYA KAMRUN NAHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1797/2025

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant confirmed she can safely return to her home country, removing the factual basis for non-refoulement protection and rendering any judicial review otiose; the application to withdraw was refused to avoid leaving the action at large and the court therefore disposed of the matter by dismissal.
20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1161/2022

The Board's decision comprehensively considered evidence and country information, applied the correct legal tests and did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore there was no reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
19 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL456/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation made return safe were within permissible evaluation and not susceptible to judicial intervention on review.
19 May 2026

RE A.N.M. RAKIBUL HASSAN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 973
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2026

The Judge did not err in refusing leave because the applicant advanced only bare assertions without particulars or evidence of legal error or procedural impropriety in the Board's decision; credibility, risk and protection findings were open to the Board and the Director's decision cannot be judicially reviewed after appeal to the Board, therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.
19 May 2026

RE AKOKO JANET NALWONGA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 986
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV225/2026

The Judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground of public law error; the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were open to it on the evidence and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of leave.
18 May 2026

MIGUEL ELENE ESTOLONIO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2581
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL919/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; the Board's Decision contained adequate reasons, addressed the evidence and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the COI relied upon was authoritative and not shown to be outdated; accordingly there was no basis for judicial review.
18 May 2026

SALADINO LUZ CASTILLO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL842/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the Court found the Board's decision was comprehensive, applied the correct legal test, considered the evidence and country information, and provided adequate reasons such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1485/2025

Leave 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 adverse credibility findings and the lack of evidence of indebtedness meant the claim was unsubstantiated and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2496
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1375/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds; the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the Board applied the correct law, so the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.