Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Screening and appeal process

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

TIYAS ROKHAENI WIDOWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1774/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacking particulars and therefore not reasonably arguable; the Board and Director conducted a lawful, reasoned assessment of credibility and risk, identified internal relocation and state protection as viable, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was established to justify judicial review.
30 Mar 2026

LUSIA SILO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1855
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL121/2024

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 consistent findings that the threats were isolated and low risk, state protection was available and reasonable internal relocation existed, thereby negating entitlement to non-refoulement protection.
6 Mar 2026

NUR AFIFAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1006/2023

The Board and Director reasonably found the applicant faced only localized low-intensity threats from private actors, that state protection and reasonable internal relocation in Indonesia were available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; therefore there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review and leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
25 Feb 2026

DINH THI MAI TRUC AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1598/2020

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the risk was localized, private in nature, and negated by state protection and internal relocation were properly reached, and there were no minor-specific grounds to require representation or remittal for the child applicant.
17 Dec 2025

ERIH NURYANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6177
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL311/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any reasonably arguable legal ground: her assertions were vague and unsupported, the Director and Board lawfully and reasonably assessed evidence including availability of state protection and internal relocation, no procedural unfairness or legal error was demonstrated, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits of the non-refoulement claim.
2 Dec 2025

KHADIM QAISER AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5874
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2155/2023

Leave refused because the applicants advanced only bare, vague assertions without particulars and failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions as to low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were lawful and left no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
27 Nov 2025

TRAN THI TIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5712
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL793/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review 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 decisions; both decision‑makers had properly assessed credibility, found the risk to be localized and low, and reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation in Vietnam were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
26 Nov 2025

BUI NGOC TUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL262/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced only bare, unparticularised assertions without showing any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s or Board’s decisions, which reasonably assessed the risk as low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and therefore there was no arguable prospect of success.
17 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL225/2022

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the risk was assessed as localized and of low intensity with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available; there was no realistic prospect of success and the Applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return.
14 Nov 2025

CHU THANH TRUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5528
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL643/2022

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available were open to them on the evidence, and the Applicant confirmed he could safely return, removing any prospect of success.