Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refugee persecution

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1485/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the lack of evidence of indebtedness meant the claim was unsubstantiated and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
15 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1248/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board gave reasons, found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and unsubstantiated, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention.
30 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4740
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1048/2025

The applicant's grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence and failed to show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that state protection and internal relocation were available and that risks were low were within its fact‑finding remit and revealed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so leave was refused.
16 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4632
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1974/2025

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed more than five months late without good reason and, on the merits, had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings (lack of evidence, no imminent or personal risk, private dispute, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation), and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
17 Sept 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL46/2021

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was more than two and a half months out of time with no explanation for the substantial delay, failed to identify any arguable legal ground of challenge, and the Director's and Board's decisions showed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness; applicant later confirmed it was safe to return, reinforcing lack of prospect of success.
30 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1077
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1361/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of imminent/substantial risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful, within its fact‑finding province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
25 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL926/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board gave adequate reasons, its adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were lawful and rational, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
8 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 997
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL196/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success given findings that risks were speculative/localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no evidence of severe harm or state involvement.
4 Nov 2021

BRAVO ROLDAN GUISINGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3212
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL268/2019

Leave was refused because the Board’s adverse credibility findings and risk assessments were supported by the evidence and there were no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
23 Apr 2021

KANDIAH MERCY MATILDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1135
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1011/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's determinations; both decision-makers properly evaluated credibility, localized risk, state protection and internal relocation and their decisions withstand rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits.