Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Screening interview

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2025

ASIF NAZEER NOMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1666/2020

Leave was refused 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 Board's findings that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational, supported by evidence, and not susceptible to successful judicial review.
11 Mar 2025

MEHERBAN HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 822
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL676/2021

The Board's adverse credibility findings and the Director's assessment that any risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation was available were not shown to involve legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground for judicial review, therefore leave was dismissed.
12 Dec 2024

DWI SARWIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3493
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL761/2023

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of over four months was inordinate, no good reason for delay was shown, and the intended grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Director's and Board's decisions contained no legal error or procedural unfairness and their findings that the risk was localized and internal relocation reasonable were not susceptible to judicial review relief.
1 Aug 2024

MONDAL NARAYAN CHANDRO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1281/2020

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; both decision-makers had applied anxious scrutiny and concluded the risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available, and the applicant later affirmed he no longer opposed return.
9 Jan 2024

TANVEER MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL369/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the risk alleged was speculative and localized, state protection and internal relocation in Pakistan were reasonably available, and the Board's decision was rational and properly reasoned.
26 Sept 2023

ANGNI NAIMA DIMNATANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2455
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1473/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision-makers properly evaluated the risk as localized, found state protection and reasonable internal relocation available, and applied appropriate standards so there was no basis for judicial review.
17 Apr 2023

WARNAKULASURIYA CARMEL MANJULA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 581
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1240/2022

The Director lawfully applied s37ZO and properly exercised discretion: the applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no breach of procedural fairness in not holding a further screening interview given adequate written submissions and prior adverse findings; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement issues, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
12 Apr 2023

WIWIN SETYOWATI SAMIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 544
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1034/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or any reliable material that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness in declining to hold a screening interview; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a RPO was justified to prevent further vexatious relitigation.
21 Dec 2022

SHAIKH AFSAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3765
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL629/2019

Leave was granted because the applicant raised reasonably arguable grounds that the Director erred in law or was irrational in treating delays and minor inconsistencies as fatal to credibility and that the Director breached procedural fairness by failing to conduct a screening interview or give the applicant an opportunity to address credibility concerns before refusing permission to make a subsequent claim under s37ZO.
13 Oct 2022

KISAN PURNIMA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3168
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL636/2022

The Director's decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable: the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or new material that, combined with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success. There was no procedural unfairness warranting intervention. Because the applicant was attempting to re‑litigate previously rejected claims and intended to use litigation solely to remain in Hong Kong, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of process; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the RPO w…