Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of country of origin information (coi)

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2025

AZIZ SHAFQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1057
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, failed to show any error in the CA Judgment, raised no viable ground of appeal and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
31 Oct 2023

NGUYEN KHANH DUY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1546/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's assertions were vague and not reasonably arguable, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision; a Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted because the applicant had persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process warranting restraint under section 27/27A and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
30 Sept 2022

RE YUYUN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1448
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP185/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s.22(1)(b), failed to show how the legal provisions invoked related to the case, and the application contained demonstrable factual inconsistencies; therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met.
17 Aug 2021

RE RAI GITA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1114
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and the new grounds raised were not reasonably arguable; procedural non-compliance with Practice Direction 2.1 justified dealing with the application on the papers and debarment from written submissions.

Hong Kong Case Law

AZIZ SHAFQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

NGUYEN KHANH DUY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

RE YUYUN

RE RAI GITA