Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement/torture claim

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

PINANA ELLYN CASTRONUEVO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1213/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success, and the application was filed almost one year late without satisfactory explanation so no extension of time was warranted.
21 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1465/2020

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify grounds or make full disclosure in Form 86, the Board's adverse factual findings (no real risk and availability of internal relocation) were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
13 Oct 2025

TRUONG THI THANH HUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1304/2020

The Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its primary fact-finding role and did not involve any public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or make required disclosure in Form 86, therefore the leave application had no real prospect of success and must be dismissed.
15 Oct 2024

PHUNG THI HUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 883
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV381/2023

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; there was no need for an oral hearing and the matter could be decided on the papers.
25 Sept 2023

MR BIMAL GYAWALI v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1982
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL914/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Permanent Secretary was not under a legal duty to give fuller reasons; even if a duty arose the notification letter together with Minute M.1 (provided to the applicant) set out adequate reasons; the applicant could not show substantial prejudice or any reasonably arguable irrationality in the decision.
23 Jun 2023

JOHNSON BENJAMIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL897/2023

Although statutory detention existed throughout, balancing Hardial Singh factors against a detention of 494 days and realistic further delay for anticipated judicial review, and having found the Director acted with diligence but the applicant contributed to delay, continued detention was no longer reasonable; habeas corpus ordered and applicant released on recognizance.
25 May 2023

BEGUM MST FATHEMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1389
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL495/2020

The court refused the withdrawal because the applicant failed to confirm the withdrawal was voluntary and that she understood the consequences, and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution because the applicant did not comply with directions and evinced no intention to prosecute.
13 Apr 2023

GAUCHAN SUBASH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 432
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV471/2020

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant presented an excessive and unexplained delay, failed to provide evidence that the judgment was received late, and the proposed grounds of appeal were general, lacked particularity and arguable merit, amounting to no proper basis for granting leave.
12 Aug 2022

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL707/2022

The original detention was lawful under s32(3) of the Immigration Ordinance; on balancing the Hardial Singh factors the 49‑day detention remained lawful because the Director demonstrated intent to deport, acted with reasonable diligence to remove the applicant (expedited screening board decision, sought travel documents, sought expedition of JR), there was a real though not high likelihood of security risk with potentially grave consequences and a history of failures to report increasing absconding risk, and removal was likely within a reasonable forthcoming period (approximately 3–4 months).…
23 Jun 2022

RE SHAFIQ JUNAID

Citation

[2022] HKCA 891
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV76/2022

Leave was properly refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedure by the Board or the Judge; the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational and there was no basis to impugn them as Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally flawed.