Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Refugees convention article 33

  • 3 Apr 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1379
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1967/2024

    The application for leave was refused because it was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation for an inordinate delay of over eight months, and the proposed grounds lacked reasonable arguability and realistic prospects of success since the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were lawful, rational and free of procedural unfairness; therefore leave is refused.

    • Judicial review
    • Leave to apply
    • Delay and extension of time
    • State protection
    • Internal relocation
    • Credibility assessment

  • 25 Mar 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1199
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL2508/2024

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; the Board’s findings that the threats were unlikely to result in serious harm and that internal relocation was viable were reasonable findings of fact within the Board’s province and the proposed review had no realistic prospects of success.

    • Judicial review
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Torture risk (immigration ordinance part viic)
    • Bor article 2 and article 3
    • Refugees convention article 33
    • Internal relocation

  • 5 Mar 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 907
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL2303/2020

    Leave was refused because the application was brought after a very substantial unexplained delay and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Board had conducted a full rehearing, made fact findings within its exclusive province, identified no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the fresh evidence proffered was neither credible nor likely decisive; therefore the proposed judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Refugees convention article 33
    • Delay/limitation
    • Judicial review - procedural fairness
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness