Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Persecution/refugee convention article 33

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

NGUYEN DUY TIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5135
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1161/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacking necessary particulars; the Board's adverse credibility finding was rationally reached after oral evidence; the Director and Board applied the correct legal principles including consideration of internal relocation; and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified that would justify judicial review.
28 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL7/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies lawfully and rationally assessed the risk as low and found state protection and internal relocation available, so there is no prospect of success on judicial review.
15 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1123/2019

Leave was refused because the court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's Decision, the Board's credibility and risk assessments were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
5 Jul 2023

UKEH SIMON CHIBUEZE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1739
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2019

Leave for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings were sustainable on the evidence, COI supported availability of state protection and internal relocation, and judicial review is not a vehicle to rehear the non‑refoulement claim.
22 Jul 2022

SHERPA NEEMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL110/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; credibility findings, delay in raising the claim, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation made the non‑refoulement claim unsustainable and the complaint about lack of legal/language assistance was not reasonably arguable.
19 May 2022

HOANG GIA HUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1479
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2326/2020

Refused extension of time because the 14‑month delay was inordinate without any adequate explanation, the intended judicial review had no arguable merits as no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions was identified, and consequently leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
16 Jun 2021

TAN POH CHYE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1066/2018

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board and Director applied proper legal principles, relied on evidence and COI, and reasonably found risks low and internal relocation available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
21 Sept 2020

HETI WIHANI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL869/2018

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑evaluate those primary assessments in the absence of such errors.