Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State protection and state acquiescence

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1110/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision, including adverse factual findings of inconsistencies and fabrication and its assessment of state protection and COI, met the enhanced Wednesbury standard and there was no procedural unfairness or additional evidence to justify review; the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
8 Aug 2025

OROU NIKKI FOUSSENI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1038/2020

Despite an inordinate delay of approximately nine months, leave was granted and time extended because the Applicant demonstrated a realistically arguable and meritorious case: the Board accepted that the Applicant suffered severe ill-treatment but failed to analyze or give reasons regarding state acquiescence and availability of state protection and thus failed to adequately address whether BOR2/BOR3 or persecution grounds were engaged; those omissions rendered the Board's conclusions susceptible to review as legally erroneous or irrational.
1 Aug 2025

AMJAD MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3151
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL912/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success: the Board's rehearing decision provided adequate reasons, the applicant's factual account was found inconsistent and incredible, there was no evidence of real risk of serious harm and the Board reasonably concluded state protection would be available after considering COI; accordingly judicial review was not warranted.
12 Feb 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 659
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2036/2024

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking particulars or supporting evidence, the Board's credibility and fact findings were within its province and supported by the record, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
19 Sept 2022

RE SHAIKH AZHARUDDIN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1358
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV215/2022

The Judge did not err in refusing leave because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings, its conclusion that the alleged harm did not reach the requisite degree, and its view that state protection and internal relocation were viable were within its fact-finding remit and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair, and the applicant had ample time to prepare his claim.
6 Aug 2019

TITU AHMED v. JOHN T GLASS, ESQ.

Citation

[2019] HKCA 844
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV124/2019

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal; the judge did not err in law or approach, applied the correct enhanced standard of scrutiny, and correctly refused leave because the appellant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB's decision.
4 Apr 2019

RE TULACHAN PREM PRASAD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 264
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV438/2018

The Judge correctly refused leave because the applicant's grounds were general, vague and lacked particulars; there was no arguable breach of the high standard of fairness by the Board or Director; the Judge had no duty to solicit further particulars from the unrepresented applicant; failure to lodge skeleton arguments justified vacating the oral hearing and proceeding on paper; therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review and leave was properly refused.
30 Jan 2019

MOZAMMEL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL698/2018

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's findings that the applicant was not in genuine fear were supported by the applicant's long unexplained delay and absence of evidence of state acquiescence; the Adjudicator properly considered state protection and internal relocation and made no error of law or procedural unfairness, so the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable.
19 Dec 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL838/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to particularise or establish any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness by the Adjudicator; the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably applied the correct legal tests to a simple family-matter factual matrix and his decision was open on the facts; moreover the Director's decision was not reviewable after the TCAB appeal process had been exhausted.
10 Dec 2018

RE HOSHAN MOHAMMAD ALAMGIR

Citation

[2018] HKCA 945
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV390/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the judge, after anxious and rigorous scrutiny, found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board had considered ample and up-to-date COI, reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available and found no state involvement or acquiescence, and the appellant's grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable.