Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refugee convention article 33 (persecution)

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2214
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1474/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no real and foreseeable risk of serious harm or killing, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, fell within the Board's fact‑finding province and were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
14 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2026
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1395/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its fact-finding province and were not shown to involve legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the grounds advanced were bare assertions without evidential support.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1448/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no valid legal ground, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by the evidence with no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1094
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2098/2025

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on risk and internal relocation were within its fact-finding province and were not vitiated by any identifiable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1323/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board conducted a fair hearing, made justified adverse credibility findings against the mother, applied the correct legal standards to the asserted risks (torture/CIDTP, BOR 2 and 3, persecution under Article 33) and the non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 was a mere irregularity not a nullity; accordingly supervisory review was not warranted.
27 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1327/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant did not raise any specific grounds, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings were fact-based determinations within its expertise where no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.
27 Feb 2026

PHUNG THI THUY DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 913
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1297/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the creditor threats did not amount to torture or a real risk to life, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or irrational.
9 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 836
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1290/2025

Extension of time was refused and the application for leave dismissed because the application was filed more than two months late without sufficient explanation or prospects of success; the Board's decision was supported by findings of lack of evidence on torture, state involvement and inability/unwillingness of state protection, and internal relocation was viable; absence of legal representation did not amount to procedural unfairness or entitlement to automatic relief.
23 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 438
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2189/2020

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without good reason, the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated (no real risk from creditor, injuries not meeting BOR 3 threshold, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation) were within the Board's fact‑finding province and not shown to be legally flawed, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
6 Jan 2026

MOHAMMED SALIM SARKER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 123
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2054/2020

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's adverse credibility finding and risk assessment, including findings on availability of state protection and internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.