Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refugee convention article 33 (non-refoulement)

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1615
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1652/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant admitted the Board's Decision was not wrong, the Board conducted a hearing and made findings that the claimed risks were unsubstantiated, the Director's Decision was superseded by the Board so the Director's decision could not be challenged once appeal pursued, and established authority holds that lack of free legal representation or continuous translation does not by itself amount to procedural unfairness; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
17 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1886/2025

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the application, having raised no specific grounds; the Court exercised supervisory restraint and did not interfere with the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions which supported dismissal of the underlying non-refoulement claim.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1282
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1306/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1282
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1463/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no valid or specific grounds of challenge, had no realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
11 Mar 2026

IDREES SOHAIL AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2186/2025

Leave refused because the applicants failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claims were unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no real risk on return were rational and supported by the evidence, and the applicants offered only bare assertions without supporting particulars or evidence.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1334/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse findings on absence of serious risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were factually supported and within the Board's fact-finding discretion; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
3 Mar 2026

BIKKINA SIVA PRASAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1005
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2863/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced no specific legal grounds, failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness, and could not show a realistic prospect of success given the Board's evidence‑based adverse credibility findings, lateness, and availability of state protection/internal relocation.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings of inconsistency, lack of credibility and absence of evidential basis for the alleged risks were open to the Board and there was no established error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its decision; state protection and internal relocation findings were sustainable.
11 Feb 2026

ANGGANA DANIS PRATAMA EGGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 571
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2715/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, the Board had comprehensively examined the evidence and made adverse credibility findings, and the applicant did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success.
12 Dec 2025

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6248
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL68/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions under challenge; the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings and conclusion on internal relocation were within a range of reasonable decisions and did not disclose grounds warranting judicial review.