Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Persecution (refugee convention art 33)

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1736/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the live risk contention and, on the merits, he failed to identify any arguable ground showing error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision which had found no reasonable likelihood of harm and that internal relocation was available; accordingly the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
4 Feb 2026

SUBA RACHEL CASTILLO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1273/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking particulars and supporting evidence, she failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings that state protection was available, internal relocation was viable, and the evidence did not establish persecution were within its fact‑finding remit and disclosed no legal or procedural error warranting review.
22 Jan 2026

DINH THI BE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 395
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2227/2023

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers properly assessed the evidence as showing a localized private dispute with low risk, available state protection and feasible internal relocation; consequently judicial review was not appropriate and leave was dismissed.
15 Sept 2025

CONCEPCION JENNY FER PARPADOS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL850/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed outside the three‑month time limit without any good reason to extend time, the Form 86 failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review or disclose material facts, and rigorous anxious scrutiny disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO decision which confirmed the Director's rejection of non‑refoulement claims.
12 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3373
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL417/2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant's delay of approximately two and a half years was significant and inordinate with no satisfactory explanation; alternatively, on the merits the intended challenge lacked reasonably arguable grounds as the Board correctly applied the law, observed procedural fairness, and its factual conclusions (including credibility findings) were not legally vulnerable.
3 Jul 2025

MONDAL MADAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL31/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the Director's assessment (including that risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable) disclosed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness that would justify judicial review, and therefore there was no prospect of success.
8 Jul 2022

AHMED SHERAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2098
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL617/2020

The court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions: the risk was localized and assessed as low, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, prior legal assistance had been provided at screening, the BOR2 ground was not engaged on the facts, and the Board's refusal of late filing did not prejudice the Applicant's BOR2 claim; therefore there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.
14 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 680
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL431/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, applied the law correctly, afforded the applicant a fair opportunity, and her factual findings were open on the evidence; there was therefore no realistic prospect of success and no basis for judicial intervention.
20 Sept 2021

DOAN DUY BA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1095/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was out of time and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings were supported, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the findings were not Wednesbury irrational.
21 Sept 2020

IMRAN HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL946/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguably sustainable legal error or procedural unfairness: he had prior legal assistance at screening, an interpreter at the Board hearing, the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies and evidence, and both the Director and the Board reasonably found available state protection and internal relocation making non‑refoulement protection unnecessary.