Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of review (wednesbury)

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2346
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1419/2021

The leave application is dismissed because the Applicant failed to particularise any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board had considered the claims afresh and provided adequate reasons satisfying the enhanced Wednesbury test in non-refoulement cases; consequently the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable and lacked realistic prospects of success; Form 86 is amended to name the Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party.
27 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1753
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL555/2022

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully and fairly assessed the evidence, made open factual findings of fabrication and implausibility supported by country information; there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
17 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL586/2021

The Leave Application was dismissed as out of time and, on the merits, the Board's Decision was lawful, rational and fair with no arguable legal error or realistic prospect of success, so no extension of time should be granted.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1097
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL184/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success; the Board had comprehensively considered the evidence and COI and its conclusion that there was no real risk of proscribed harm was not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational.
3 Mar 2026

RE RAFIQUE MOON

Citation

[2026] HKCA 236
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV990/2025

The applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the judge’s refusal of leave; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were open on the evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the Court will not interfere and the appeal is dismissed.
23 Feb 2026

MONDAL RIPON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 191
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP139/2025

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant gave no reasonable explanation for his substantial delay (including a two‑year gap after earlier refusal), the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as the Judge and Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment of COI, state protection and internal relocation disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to seek or justify admission of fresh evidence or new grounds (religious claim).
5 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5363
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1715/2020

The application for leave is dismissed because the proposed judicial review is not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success: the challenge to the Director is misconceived in light of the two‑tier USM, and the Board’s decision withstands enhanced scrutiny as it contained careful credibility findings supported by evidence, lawful application of the legal framework and no demonstrated error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness.
28 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5113
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2391/2020

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed approximately two months out of time without any explanation; the Director's earlier decision was superseded by the Board appeal and not reviewable; and the Board's decision contained adequate reasons, did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, such that the applicant had no reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success.
12 Aug 2025

KANWALDEESH SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3599
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL349/2020

Leave dismissed because applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds; on anxious scrutiny the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to the Board and not challengeable in judicial review, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
27 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2151
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL954/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable legal grounds, the Board conducted a fair hearing and made credible fact findings within its remit, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention.