Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑refoulement risk assessment

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

DHALIWAL ANGREJ SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1398
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL202/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success: the Board adequately considered the evidence and COI, made factual findings that there was no genuine fear of being killed or seriously harmed, found state protection and internal relocation viable, and did not err in law or act with procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore judicial review was not warranted.
24 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1277
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL198/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any pleaded or arguable public law grounds undermining the Board's factual and legal conclusions; the Board applied the law correctly and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
28 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 87
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1299/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed more than three months after the decision without good reason to extend time, the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of public law error or procedural unfairness, and rigorous examination under the enhanced Wednesbury standard did not reveal errors sufficient to vitiate the TCAB/NRCPO decision affirming the Director's risk assessment.
11 Aug 2025

DELA CERNA BILLY BUMACOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1057/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Board Decision was supported by sound factual assessment and reasoning and there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial interference.
11 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2795
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL543/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success; the NRCPO decision withstands anxious scrutiny as it gave adequate reasons for rejecting the applicant's evidence and lawfully concluded there was no BOR2/BOR3 or persecution risk and that state protection and internal relocation were available.
13 Nov 2024

CAMARA LAMIN M v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1044
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV294/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision or in the judge's refusal of leave; the Board's detailed adverse credibility findings left no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review and the appellant also failed to comply with procedural directions, leading to determination on paper.
27 May 2022

TRINH THI LY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 738
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV535/2021

The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant did not advance any reasonably arguable ground of error of law or procedural unfairness against the Board's findings, which were supported by evidence and reasoning; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and the appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCA 533
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV31/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused because the Applicant failed to advance any viable or specific grounds below showing the Board erred in accepting his voluntary withdrawal; he could not properly raise new grounds on appeal; there was no realistic prospect of success and no error in the Judge's decision to refuse leave.
24 Dec 2021

RE DE SILVA ANTHONY MENEKA KUMARASENA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1947
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV532/2020

The motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the intended appeal had no merit: the purportedly new 2005 letter was not properly explained and failed the Ladd v Marshall test for fresh evidence, the second letter had already been considered and rejected by the adjudicator as not contemporaneous or probative, and no question of great general or public importance (nor any basis under the 'or otherwise' limb) was shown under s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO.
11 Nov 2021

RE RUSTINI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3299
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1298/2018

The court refused leave for judicial review and refused extension of time because the TCAB and Director correctly found the claim to be a private loan dispute with no real risk of serious harm or state involvement, the applicant had language assistance and procedural opportunities, and the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success; the short delay did not justify extension given the lack of merit.