Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Persecution risk (refugee convention article 33)

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCA 693
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision was demonstrated, and the Board's adverse credibility findings and internal relocation conclusion provided no basis for judicial intervention.
6 Sept 2023

KARKI BHAGAWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2277
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1365/2020

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions as to state protection and internal relocation were within the permissible evaluative range and thus not susceptible to judicial review as a rehearing.
8 Sept 2022

NGUYEN VAN DIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2760
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL600/2019

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers rationally found the risk low, characterized the matter as a private dispute with state protection and viable internal relocation, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
21 Jul 2022

RE UNLAYAO JURALYN DAVID

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1052
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV145/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground; the Board's credibility findings and risk assessments (including viability of internal relocation) lay within its fact-finding remit and were not shown to be Wednesbury unreasonable, and no procedural unfairness or legal error was established.
8 Mar 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 172
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL416/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions, which were supported by credibility findings and internal relocation conclusions and thus disclosed no prospect of success.
29 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL896/2017

Leave refused because rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions: applicant's evidence was found not credible and insufficient, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and the procedural complaints (lack of legal representation, translation, Director's attendance, reasons on BOR 2) were without merit or factually unfounded, giving no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

KARKI BHAGAWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

NGUYEN VAN DIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RE UNLAYAO JURALYN DAVID

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

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