Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness and legal representation

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2025

HUSSAIN AMJAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4035
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL682/2020

The leave application is dismissed because the NRCPO's BOR2 assessment did not disclose any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the COI relied on recognised sources and COI assessment is a factual matter for the tribunal; the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from lack of legal assistance and a reasonable internal relocation alternative was found, rendering the judicial review not reasonably arguable.
29 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL12/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that lack of counsel did not render the process unfair, meant there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
16 Mar 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1250/2018

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully accepted the applicant's facts yet reasonably concluded those facts did not establish torture, BOR2/BOR3 or persecution risk, there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness and no arguable Wednesbury-unreasonable conclusion, so the applicant had no reasonable chance of success on judicial review.
29 Jun 2020

OSMAN AGAMI ABDELMAKSOUD ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1732/2018

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the Board’s factual findings and legal application were within its remit, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, internal relocation was a viable option, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.
8 May 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 724
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1582/2018

The ex parte dismissal was set aside on acceptable explanation for absence, but leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularize grounds and demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the Board's adverse factual findings were rational and supported by the evidence and the Director's conduct (including discretion not to re-screen for BOR 2) did not disclose reviewable error.
1 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 219
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL467/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator’s decision was supported by proper basis, including balanced consideration of COI and findings that state protection and internal relocation were available; there was no Wednesbury unreasonableness, error of law or procedural unfairness, and the Applicant failed to show prejudice from lack of later-stage representation, language difficulties, or the Director's absence, so the complaints were not reasonably arguable.
25 Jul 2018

ABUBO JANET SAWADAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1665
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL715/2017

The court refused leave because the applicant's factual case did not establish a reasonably arguable risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of life if returned; the Director and TCAB properly applied the law, considered relevant COI and state protection/internal relocation, and there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness from lack of further legal representation. The application was therefore not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.
11 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 917
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL500/2017

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the TCAB and Director lawfully and adequately considered all relevant legal grounds, applicant's evidence was found unreliable and inconsistent, procedural complaints did not establish unfairness or legal error, and the substantive decision met the applicable standard (not Wednesbury unreasonable).
16 Mar 2018

HOUNKPEDJI MESSANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 152
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV164/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused because the Board’s decision contained adequate and logical reasoning based on COI and facts, there was no unfairness from lack of legal representation, the applicant failed to supply or justify fresh evidence and did not establish a reasonably arguable challenge to the Board’s findings, so the Court should not intervene.