Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement

Legal area

Court

21 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2861
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1520/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error; the Board's decision had a rational basis on findings of low risk, adequate state protection and feasible internal relocation, and no procedural unfairness was established, so judicial intervention was not justified.
21 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2856
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1071/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error, irrationality or breach of fair procedure in the Board's credibility-based decision; absent such arguable public law error the court will not intervene or re-hear the merits.
21 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2787
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2280/2020

The application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the application and expressly requested to return to India and close his cases, leaving no outstanding live issue in the action; accordingly there was no basis to extend time to appeal.
21 May 2026

MAHMOOD SHAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL124/2021

Extension of time to appeal refused because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for a two-month delay and there was no realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal; the Court found no error in the earlier decision and the intended challenge was hopeless.
21 May 2026

LATIF SHOAIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2789
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1205/2020

Refusal of extension: applicant offered inconsistent and unsupported explanations for a substantial seven-month delay and made no arguable grounds for the intended appeal; the Board and Court decisions showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there were no realistic prospects of success; accordingly extension of time to appeal is refused.
21 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2860
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1281/2021

No arguable public law error was identified on the face of the material; the Board's credibility and factual findings were not irrational or procedurally unfair and sufficient state protection/internal relocation existed; accordingly there was no basis for judicial review and the application for leave was dismissed.
20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2790
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1466/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: his grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence and did not show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that risks were remote, state protection and internal relocation were viable, and that the Board's decision was sustainable.
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

SALAUDDIN MD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1907/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground with realistic prospects, the Board's decision contained full reasons and was free of legal error, procedural unfairness and irrationality, and the applicant failed to establish a real risk of torture, death or persecution or state acquiescence such that intervention by the court was warranted.
20 May 2026

NIA DANIATI BT HAMDAN USMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1075/2022

The Board's decision contained adequate reasons, applied the correct legal tests, considered the evidence and country of origin information, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect of success and was dismissed.