Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State protection and acquiescence

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2657
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1487/2022

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board applied correct legal principles, made admissible credibility findings that the applicant was an untrustworthy witness and that her evidence lacked credence, and the Director's decision was superseded by the Board's decision and therefore not reviewable; the challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
27 Feb 2026

MALIK SHAHRUKH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 228
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV913/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's refusal of leave; the matters complained of were unsubstantiated assertions and the proper forum for factual and COI assessments is the Board, not the Court of Appeal.
19 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL464/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable: the Board conducted a rehearing that superseded the Director's decision, gave adequate and comprehensive reasons, made supported credibility findings and risk assessments, and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision.
19 Nov 2025

ABID ALI HASSAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1005
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any viable ground to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment of COI, state protection and internal relocation were within its province and not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
25 Jun 2025

RE SAHOTA RANDHIR SINGH

Citation

[2025] HKCA 557
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV19/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient particularity any error of law or arguable ground on which leave for judicial review ought to have been granted; the Judge did not err in upholding the Board's factual findings and reasonably refused leave.
28 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL286/2020

Leave was granted because the application was reasonably arguable: although the Board's adverse credibility findings are generally not to be interfered with, there was an arguable basis that the Board failed to consider material evidence (the applicant's injury/disability) and failed to properly assess COI/state protection, rendering the Board's decision arguably unreasonable and tainted by procedural unfairness, thus meeting the threshold for leave.
5 Mar 2025

RE HASSAN MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 214
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV464/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or omission by the Judge in refusing leave; the Board's and Director's decisions were supported by the available evidence and no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review were established.
20 Mar 2024

RE PHAM THI DINH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 212
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP525/2022

The Director's decision to refuse the applicant leave to bring the intended subsequent non‑refoulement claim was not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or credible evidence of state acquiescence and internal relocation was available; therefore the extension of time to appeal is dismissed as the intended appeal lacks any reasonable prospect of success.
22 Aug 2022

RE BARROW LAMIN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1214
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV192/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the Leave Decision correctly held that the applicant’s challenge amounted to an impermissible appeal on facts; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision and the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof, therefore leave to apply for judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
13 Jul 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2088
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL123/2022

The application for extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was brought more than four years late with no satisfactory explanation, the proposed grounds disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success as the Board's credibility and factual findings and its application of COI satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard; the applicant's defaults and sleeping on his rights justified dismissal for want of prosecution.