Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refugee convention article 33

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1487/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because his grounds were unparticularised assertions unsupported by evidence; he had no entitlement to free representation at all stages and did not apply for time to prepare; there was no procedural unfairness requiring intervention and the Board was entitled to reject his evidence and dismiss the appeal, therefore leave is refused.
5 May 2026

DANG THI HONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2452
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL463/2025

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds were conclusory and lacked necessary particulars; the Board and Director lawfully and reasonably assessed the claim as a low risk private monetary dispute with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated, and the Applicant confirmed she considered return safe.
28 Apr 2026

NGUYEN THI THU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL167/2024

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably assessed the risk as low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and the Applicant later confirmed it was safe to return, so there was no prospect of success.
28 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2308
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1024/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable grounds of public law error, the court could discern no reasonably arguable case of procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB decision (notably on credibility, state protection and internal relocation), and the application was brought over 41 months out of time with no acceptable explanation such as to justify an extension of time; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed and the Form 86 amended on the court's own motion.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL685/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds of error, failed to show that the Board's factual findings involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the application was brought late without explanation; therefore the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable and leave was dismissed.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2137
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL340/2023

The Leave Application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify particularised, arguable public law errors; the Board's adverse factual findings and conclusions that past ill‑treatment lacked requisite severity and that state protection/internal relocation were available did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge has no realistic prospect of success.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1931
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2004/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings that the claimed risks were remote or speculative were within its fact-finding province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to justify judicial review.
22 Apr 2026

WEERAKOON MUDIYANSELAGE KUSHAN T.S. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2077
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1731/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board lawfully found state protection available, disbelieved the applicant and found no evidence of risk, and the applicant produced only general assertions without supporting evidence amounting to an error of law or procedural unfairness.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1393/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Form 86 contained no arguable grounds, the applicant failed to discharge disclosure and contact obligations, and on rigorous anxious scrutiny the NRCPO/TCAB decisions showed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to justify review; the applicant lacked a reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1421/2025

The application for extension of time is refused because the leave application was filed more than three months after the Board's Decision and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on the merits; the Board's factual findings (no genuine and substantial risk, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation) were within its province and did not disclose error of law or procedural unfairness, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.