Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture and non-refoulement

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1438
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL544/2022

The Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and COI, the Board applied the correct legal tests under the USM and the Immigration Ordinance, there was no procedural unfairness or legal error and the Decision was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the leave application was refused as having no realistic prospect of success.
29 Feb 2024

MD TONI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 618
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL810/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularize any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board conducted a proper evidential hearing, identified material inconsistencies and delay that undermined credibility, and reasonably concluded any risk was localized and could be obviated by state protection or internal relocation; therefore no reasonably arguable judicial review ground existed and the application had no prospect of success.
29 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1971
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL473/2019

Leave was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant breached his statutory duty to cooperate and substantiate his claim (s37ZA), there was no demonstrable state involvement or failure of protection, internal relocation was viable, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
22 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL816/2020

The court refused leave because the Board had correctly identified and applied the law, made fact findings (that honour killing was outlawed since 2016, shame was minimal, lapse of 14 years and deterrence reduced risk, and the rape allegation was unproven) that were not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect of success. The Withdrawal Application was refused because the Applicant had not shown his decision to withdraw was an informed bona fide decision, but no order was made on…
4 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1612
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL381/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable case: he did not attend the Board hearing or explain his absence, provided only brief untested written assertions and no supporting evidence, and the Board's factual findings were not legally flawed or irrational; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and no basis for judicial intervention on grounds of error of law or procedural unfairness.
3 Sept 2019

AKTER MST SHIRIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL183/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to produce evidence showing legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision; the Adjudicator reasonably applied relevant COI, properly assessed internal relocation, the Applicant was able to participate and was not prejudiced by lack of counsel or by the Director's absence, and therefore the complaints were not reasonably arguable or likely to succeed.
30 Jul 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL495/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk were supported by adequate reasons, were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness or demonstrable prejudice from the absence of legal representation or continuous interpretation.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

MD TONI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

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

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

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

AKTER MST SHIRIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

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