Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Persecution under refugee convention article 33

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1493/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings were supported by the evidence (no intent by enemies to harm, no serious injury, low risk on return, state protection and internal relocation available), and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality meriting judicial review.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1662/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings and credibility assessments fell squarely within its province and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.
17 Mar 2026

NGUYEN THI MAI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1613/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the applicant had appeared and given evidence before the Board, the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were open on the evidence, and she therefore lacked any realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
11 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1394
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1379/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.
3 Mar 2026

ONWUEGBUCHU PATRICKBEN AZUBUIKE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1003
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1317/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings fell within its fact-finding province and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1349/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision and did not show a realistic prospect of success on judicial review; the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were within its fact-finding remit and justified refusal of leave.
6 Feb 2026

HASAN MILON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 776
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL65/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the TCAB decision; the Form 86 contained no particulars of error; the TCAB's adverse credibility and reliability findings were within the permissible range of evaluation; no arguable basis for judicial review was demonstrated.
4 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1293/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, and the Board's adverse factual findings and conclusion that internal relocation was viable lie squarely within the Board's fact-finding province, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
28 Jan 2026

BUDGAMA MUDIYANSELAGE S P PERERA alias BUDGAMA MUDIYANSELAGE FATHIMA SHIBANA HILMY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 342
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2785/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that risks had diminished and that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to it and not susceptible to challenge at the leave stage.
28 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1240/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's decision was based on credibility findings and country/relocation/state protection assessments within its fact-finding remit, there was no demonstrated error of law or procedural unfairness, and the prior failure on BOR 3 meant there was no arguable BOR 2 claim.