Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State protection/acquiescence

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2668/2024

Leave refused because the Board's credibility and fact findings were supported by evidence and reasons, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Applicant failed to discharge the burden to prove lack of state protection or entitlement to non‑refoulement under the USM.
6 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL240/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the applicant's grounds were general and unparticularised and the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings cannot be impugned on judicial review absent public law error.
27 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1256/2022

The application for leave was dismissed because the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality; its adverse credibility and fact findings and assessments of COI, state protection and internal relocation were within the Board's province and the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without particulars, so the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
23 Jul 2021

PHAM THI DINH v. TOTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2067
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL382/2021

Leave was refused because the Director reasonably concluded there was no significant change of circumstances since the prior determination; the new allegations were either previously considered or insufficient (a single incident did not establish state acquiescence), internal relocation remained viable, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality making the intended judicial review have a realistic prospect of success.
23 Mar 2021

RE HOSSAIN MOHAMMAD RAHAT

Citation

[2021] HKCA 375
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP225/2019

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant gave no reasonable explanation for the delay and the intended appeal was without merit: the grounds challenged the merits of the Board's decision and failed to identify any error by the judge, the judge's refusal of leave was adequately reasoned, credibility findings by the adjudicator were lawful and dispositive, and there was no realistic prospect of success.
10 Jan 2020

RE ESQUILLO RIAH MAE ORDIZ

Citation

[2020] HKCA 46
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP77/2019

Extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no explanation for the delay, had misframed the renewal application, and there were no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal — the deputy judge and the Board had reasonably considered the claim, made no legal or procedural errors, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success.
23 May 2019

KARTINI v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1281
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1911/2018

Where a statutory appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board exists and the Board has decided the matter, an applicant cannot seek judicial review of the Director's decision absent exceptional circumstances; the Board properly rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated and inconsistent, leaving no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review, so leave is refused.
25 Jan 2019

AMIN SHEIKH AL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 62
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV418/2018

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's refusal of leave because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars as to how the TCAB or Director erred; the judge properly applied the limited scope of judicial review, found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decisions of the Director or the TCAB, and was not plainly wrong in refusing leave.
15 Jan 2019

KULDEEP KUMAR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL921/2018

No exceptional circumstances were shown to permit judicial review of the Director's decision and the Board's factual credibility finding was reasonable and lawful; therefore the applicant has no realistic prospect of success and leave is refused.
29 Nov 2018

RE HIKMAT TULACHAN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 848
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV334/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable legal error; the Board's adverse credibility finding had a rational basis, no procedural unfairness or error of law was demonstrated, and the judge correctly applied the enhanced Wednesbury standard rather than re-evaluating merits.