Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refugee/persecution risk

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2026

GALLEGO VALDES EMMANUEL (a minor) by his mother and next friend ANZOLA SANCHEZ YESICA DANIELA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 873
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1468/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board properly assessed credibility, state protection and internal relocation, met high standards of fairness in handling a minor's claim despite lack of representation, and there was no basis for the court to usurp the Board's factual risk assessment.
21 Jun 2022

MONDAL SUMITRA RANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1683
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL927/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on credibility, severity, lack of state involvement and availability of protection/internal relocation were adequately reasoned, not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable, and the court will not substitute its own fact-finding for the Board's supervisory review.
4 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 399
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL423/2018

The applicant filed his leave application almost five months late without any explanation or proposed grounds and there was no arguable merit to the intended review because the Board made adverse credibility findings and reasoned that the harm was localized with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available; accordingly there was no good reason to extend time and leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
21 Sept 2018

RE NADEEM ASIF

Citation

[2018] HKCA 608
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV215/2018

The Court dismissed the appeal because the deputy judge correctly concluded there was no arguable ground for judicial review: the Board and Director gave reasons, no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown, lack of representation did not render the process unfair given the facts and prior representation, and the applicant's bare assertion of fear of return did not demonstrate an error of law or satisfy grounds for leave.
17 Aug 2018

AMIN SHEIKH AL v. BRUCE HENRY, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1004/2017

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board. The decision-makers made permissible findings on credibility, low risk of future harm, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant's grounds were too vague and unparticularised to show a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
27 Jul 2018

RE DIVI DIAH NINGRUM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 438
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Board made decisions within the range of reasonable responses: the alleged ill‑treatment was of low intensity and frequency, the dispute was a private financial matter with available state protection and internal relocation, credibility findings were open to the adjudicators, procedural complaints lacked specific prejudice and the proposed new grounds were not raised earlier, so there was no reasonably arguable basis and no prospect of success.
25 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL533/2017

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or procedural unfairness reasonably arguable on the facts; the TCAB adjudicator conducted a rehearing, considered the evidence and reasonably concluded there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life; the grounds advanced do not meet the threshold for leave under the governing authorities including the enhanced Wednesbury test.
18 May 2018

MANSURI INTEKHAB ALAM MOHAMED SHAKIL REZA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1045
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL806/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the court, after rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board was entitled to make adverse credibility findings based on contradictions with COI and the applicant's evidence, and the new statement did not address the central issues material to the Board's decision, so there was no real prospect of success.
11 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 919
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL538/2017

The TCAB's decision was a lawful, careful de novo assessment of evidence and credibility; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown and the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
23 Apr 2018

THAKUR KRISHAN SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL542/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the adjudicator and Director committed no error of law, applied the correct legal principles including high standards of fairness for torture claims, made justified credibility findings, reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, and the application was not reasonably arguable nor had a realistic prospect of success.