Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State acquiescence

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2597
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1444/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, the Director's prior decision was superseded by the Board's Decision and thus not independently reviewable, and the Board's credibility findings and application of Article 2 HKBORO met the applicable (enhanced) Wednesbury standard.
12 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1437/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board applied correct legal principles under Article 2 HKBORO, properly considered COI and found insufficient evidence of risk or state involvement, and the Director's earlier decision was superseded and not independently reviewable; accordingly the intended challenge had no realistic prospects of success.
12 May 2026

NGUYEN VAN THAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2676
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL581/2023

Leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars; there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's reasoned decisions that found the risk low and internal relocation feasible; the application had no reasonable prospect of success and the applicant affirmed it was safe to return.
11 May 2026

HERMOSA ARNOLD TOLENTINO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 644
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV373/2025

The applicant's grounds were general and lacked particulars and did not identify any error in the judge's refusal of leave; because no viable ground was advanced to reverse the judge's decision and the Court will not re-examine the Board's factual assessments, the appeal is dismissed.
5 May 2026

DANG THI HONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2452
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL463/2025

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds were conclusory and lacked necessary particulars; the Board and Director lawfully and reasonably assessed the claim as a low risk private monetary dispute with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated, and the Applicant confirmed she considered return safe.
30 Apr 2026

KANWALJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 784
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV392/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's refusal to grant leave; absent an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality the Court will not overturn the judge or re-assess the Board's factual determinations.
30 Apr 2026

MAHFOOZ TAYYAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 782
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV378/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge’s refusal to grant leave; the grounds were general allegations lacking particulars and therefore no viable basis to overturn the judge’s decision.
27 Apr 2026

LIANA WIJAYANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1357/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bald, vague and lacked necessary particulars and therefore were not reasonably arguable; the Board and Director conducted lawful, fair and reasonable assessments—finding low localized risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation—and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was established to justify judicial review.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2069
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1423/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds amounted to bare assertions without supporting evidence, the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was viable were fact-based and lawful, and there was no realistic prospect of establishing an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial intervention.
17 Apr 2026

NGUYEN DUC TOAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2113
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1000/2023

Leave dismissed because the applicant was inordinate and materially out of time (over nine months) without good reason and his proposed grounds were bare, vague and not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board had made no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in finding the harm was a private dispute with low risk and that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available; applicant later affirmed it was safe to return.