Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refoulement

Legal area

Court

19 May 2026

RE A.N.M. RAKIBUL HASSAN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 973
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2026

The Judge did not err in refusing leave because the applicant advanced only bare assertions without particulars or evidence of legal error or procedural impropriety in the Board's decision; credibility, risk and protection findings were open to the Board and the Director's decision cannot be judicially reviewed after appeal to the Board, therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.
15 May 2026

VU THI QUYNH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 877
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV771/2025

The applicant failed to identify any error in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review; the allegations were general and not directed to the Judge's reasons; accordingly there were no viable grounds to reverse the Judge's decision and the appeal is dismissed.
7 May 2026

OBI NDUBUISI GEORGE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2107/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were not susceptible to judicial review absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Form 86 lacked clear grounds and full disclosure, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1601/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse findings on credibility and lack of documentary evidence were within its fact-finding remit, there was no evidential basis for the asserted risks, state protection and internal relocation were found viable, and the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without particulars raising an arguable error of law or procedural unfairness.
30 Apr 2026

AMINAH-WATI-BT-BONAJI-KASMIJAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2342/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any properly pleaded grounds in Form 86, failed to make full and frank disclosure, and did not demonstrate any public law error (error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality) in the Board's factual findings or application of the law; therefore the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
30 Apr 2026

MALKIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 779
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV335/2025

The appellant's grounds were general, lacking particulars or any arguable legal error; accordingly there was no basis to overturn the High Court's refusal to grant leave and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1293/2025

Extension of time refused because the applicant offered no explanation for the 19‑day delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non‑refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; accordingly the application for extension and the appeal were dismissed.
24 Apr 2026

HOANG THI NHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2081
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL61/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or make full disclosure, offered no explanation for the one-month delay, and the Board's credibility-based factual findings disclosed no public law error, unfairness or irrationality and therefore the intended challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2131
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL537/2021

Although the delay was short, the applicant's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and, critically, there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal; therefore an extension of time to appeal was refused.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2266
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1016/2024

The court allowed the applicant to withdraw his leave application because the applicant’s affirmation established that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, and the court accepted that the applicant understood that the Board’s decision would remain in force and that he might be refouled.