Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refugee convention protection

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2065
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1428/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Board's factual findings (including that the creditor had never inflicted physical harm and that inability to repay a loan is not a Refugee Convention reason) were unchallenged and there was no demonstration of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so no realistic prospect of success was shown.
19 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL671/2020

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness and failed to show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings (fabrication, unreliability, no state involvement) stand and are not susceptible to supervisory interference absent legal error.
27 Feb 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 614
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL361/2019

Leave refused because the Board’s Decision contained no detectable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board properly assessed credibility, applied relevant legal tests (including torture threshold), and relied on credible COI to conclude state protection and internal relocation were viable, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
28 Feb 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 489
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1508/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board's findings on credibility, low risk of serious harm, availability of state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
16 Jul 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1775
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1644/2018

Leave was refused because the Board validly disbelieved the applicant's factual assertions and the applicant could not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; her procedural complaints were contradicted by her own oral evidence and unsupported, so they did not meet the threshold for granting leave to judicially review the Board's decision.
14 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL557/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, gave adequate reasons, the applicant's account contained material inconsistencies and was implausible, there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the applicant's claim had no realistic prospect of success.
7 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL521/2017

The adjudicator's decision was legally sound and did not disclose any error of law or procedural unfairness; the applicant's evidence, even if accepted, did not meet the statutory or Convention thresholds for torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of the right to life, there was no evidence of state involvement or acquiescence, internal relocation was reasonably available, and the judicial review grounds were unparticularised and without realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
24 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL434/2017

Leave was refused because the adjudicator properly evaluated the evidence, found the incidents did not meet the legal threshold for torture, CIDTP or persecution, concluded state protection was available, and the application was not reasonably arguable under the enhanced Wednesbury/Chan test.
24 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1020
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL522/2017

On the evidence and proper application of law the adjudicator and Director correctly found no substantial grounds to believe the applicant faces a real risk of torture, severe ill-treatment, persecution or breach of right to life if returned; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the leave application was not reasonably arguable and must be refused.
8 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL418/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the TCAB conducted a de novo rehearing correctly, applied the relevant legal tests under the Immigration Ordinance, Bill of Rights and Refugee Convention, made defensible findings that the applicant's evidence did not establish the requisite severity, state involvement or a real and substantial risk of torture/CIDTP/persecution, and there was no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonable result; consequently the application was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.