Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Screening and appeal procedure

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2025

DO VAN DAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4878
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL847/2025

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularize or establish any arguable legal error; the Director and Board made reasoned findings that any risk was low, localized and defeasible by state protection and internal relocation; credibility concerns and COI reliance were lawful and not irrational; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused (further weighed by the applicant's later affirmation that it was safe to return).
16 May 2024

PAUZIAH SITI alias SITI PAUZIAH alias SITI-PAUZIAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL81/2024

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's findings that the risk from the loan shark was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
20 Nov 2023

NGUYEN CONG TUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1514/2023

Applicant's leave application was refused because it was filed more than three months after grounds arose without any adequate explanation for the substantial delay; the Board properly applied the statutory test and there was no arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions, so there was no prospect of success to justify extension of time or leave.
19 Oct 2023

YANGER RUBY JOYCE MASALINTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL680/2022

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; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was feasible were within jurisdiction and supported by evidence, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
21 Jun 2022

AHMED ZAFAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1871
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL343/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board lawfully conducted the appeal in Applicant's absence after unexplained non-attendance; the Board's findings that risk was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claim therefore failed, were reasonable and not susceptible to judicial review; Applicant later confirmed no obstacle to return.
24 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1020/2017

Leave was granted because there existed a reasonably arguable basis that the Adjudicator misapplied the law (notably by equating BOR3 and persecution tests and implying a requirement of past severe injury) and may have been unfair or unreasonable in assessing the applicant's claim, giving the applicant a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
4 Sept 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2166
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL374/2018

Leave refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's decision was supported by evidence and COI, was not Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness, the appeal bundle was served in time under the Practice Directions, and the Applicant failed to show prejudice from lack of representation or interpreter assistance.
20 Aug 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2054
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL689/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Adjudicator’s credibility and state-protection findings were supported by the record and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the Applicant's complaints about representation, interpretation and missing documents did not establish a realistic prospect of success.
2 Aug 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL988/2018

The application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Board's 24 November 2014 decision was dismissed for inordinate and unjustified delay because the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time; the application for leave in respect of the Board's 31 May 2018 decision was refused because the complaints were not reasonably arguable, there was no procedural unfairness and the Adjudicator's decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
19 Dec 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL389/2018

Leave refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the appeal bundle was served in time, there was no demonstrated prejudice from lack of legal representation or language difficulties, the Adjudicator conducted a careful credibility assessment (including rejection of a belated changed account) and applied the law correctly; there was no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality and no realistic prospects of success.