Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State protection and relocation

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2026

TA THU YEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL604/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify cogent grounds in the Form 86 and the TCAB decision, after anxious scrutiny, contained no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the evidence was insufficient to show a real risk of serious harm, the TCAB reasonably found state protection and internal relocation were available, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable.
12 Mar 2026

TAWAGON ROSE-ANN JULIAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1176
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL544/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground, made inadequate disclosure, and the TCAB decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such as would give rise to a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.
27 Jan 2023

MANUEL RAFAEL JR. KALAW, also known as PAFAEL K MANUEL JR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1224/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant's subsequent claim did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director's adverse credibility and protection findings were not displaced and the additional material was unpersuasive. An RPO is necessary because the applicant's conduct and repeated attempts to relitigate the same facts amounted to abuse of process and, if unrestricted, would allow further meritless proceedings to be issued solely to remain in Hong Kong.
30 Aug 2022

RE ULLAH SIBGATH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1094/2019

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal and provided no adequate reasons for delay; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings (claim unsubstantiated, state protection/relocation available) were determinative.
13 Jan 2022

PURISIMA AIDA P. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/2019

The court refused extension of time and dismissed the application because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the substantial delay, the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were rational and supported by the evidence, and the substantive non-refoulement/torture claim lacked merit given the domestic nature and low severity of the assaults and the availability of State protection/relocation; no error of law or procedural irregularity was demonstrated.
4 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL718/2017

The adjudicator did not err in law or procedure; on the evidence the applicant was a low‑level local activist with no real risk of serious harm at national level and, if any local risk existed, he could reasonably relocate within Bangladesh; the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
16 Mar 2018

RE QADIR SHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 160
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV242/2017

The Court held there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator’s or Director’s decisions, the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Jan 2018

RE MR. GURDEV SINGH [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 71
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL325/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to exhaust the available appeal to TCAB and was out of time without exceptional circumstances, failed to update his contact details thereby undermining service, and the Director’s and Adjudicator’s findings (including on credibility, minor nature of assault, state protection and relocation) disclosed no error of law or procedure and no reasonably arguable public law ground.