Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement (refugee convention article 33)

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1242/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or arguable public law error; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational, supported by the record and not vitiated by legal error or procedural unfairness, therefore no supervisory intervention was warranted.
17 Dec 2025

MD ALOMGIR HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1781/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants relied on bare assertions without supporting evidence or particulars, failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness that could lead to success on judicial review, and the Board's findings were within its fact-finding remit and supported by evidence and lawful reliance on country of origin material; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success to justify granting leave.
4 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL132/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's primary findings on credibility, concealment, unreliability, country information regarding anti-corruption measures, and viability of internal relocation were factual determinations not susceptible to supervisory intervention absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant advanced no specific grounds of challenge.
30 Oct 2025

STANLEY ENYIOHA CHIDUBEM GOODLUCK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2060/2020

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because he did not establish any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings that ill‑treatment was highly unlikely, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were not susceptible to supervisory intervention, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
18 Sept 2025

DABNATH BIJOY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1575/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking requisite particulars and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual assessment which fell within the Board's primary province of judgment.
25 Mar 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1275/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were within its fact-finding discretion and disclosed no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
6 Apr 2022

HARPAL SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL390/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; those decision‑makers reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and credibility concerns justified dismissal, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
3 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL75/2019

Applicant failed to show any error of law or fact by the Board or any breach of procedural fairness that would give rise to a realistic prospect of success on judicial review; authorities confirm limited scope for challenging adjudicator fact findings and no automatic entitlement to representation or continuous interpretation; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.