Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of country of origin information

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

RE MATIBAG RONNEL PAET

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1117
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP244/2023

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raises any question of great general or public importance, the grounds advanced were personal and unarguable, new fact-sensitive grounds could not be relied upon at this stage, and the intended appeal had no prospect of success such that statutory requirements for leave under s22(1)(b) were not met.
19 Nov 2024

NGUYEN VAN HAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL353/2024

Leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were vague, lacked necessary particulars, and failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's or Director's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings, assessment of low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were lawful and rational; the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return, eliminating prospect of success.
20 May 2022

RE SHAH ZAHID

Citation

[2022] HKCA 695
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP107/2022

The extension of time was refused because the applicant did not satisfactorily explain the near-four-week delay, failed to identify or particularise any arguable errors in the Judge's reasoning or the Board's detailed adverse credibility findings, and therefore the intended appeal had no real prospect of success making an extension futile.
16 Jan 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1334/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness: the Director and the Board lawfully applied COI, concluded the risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable, the applicant had assistance at relevant stages, and the complaints about representation and translation were speculative and not reasonably arguable.
11 Dec 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2551
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1266/2018

Leave refused because the applicant's asserted grounds were speculative or unparticularised, the Board and Director made lawful assessments (applicant declined to give evidence, interpreter was provided, COI criticisms not specified), the risk was found localized with reasonable internal relocation available, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was identified to justify judicial review.
6 Dec 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL711/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness: the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning after an oral hearing with interpreter assistance, the Director properly considered COI and internal relocation, and established authorities confirm risk assessment is for the Director/Board and not for rehearing by the court.
22 Oct 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL503/2018

Leave refused because the Director's decision was superseded by the Board's rehearing and thus not reviewable; the Board conducted a fair rehearing with interpreter assistance, its factual findings that risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable were supported by evidence and COI and were not irrational; absence of counsel at the Board hearing or of the Director's attendance did not amount to procedural unfairness; no arguable ground for judicial review existed.
5 Sept 2019

RE HAIDER ZEESHAN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 984
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP64/2019

Extension of time refused because the delay was not insubstantial, the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the delay, he failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal and the intended appeal was unarguable; granting leave out of time would be futile, therefore the summons was dismissed and an order made barring a request for oral reconsideration.
8 Mar 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 550
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1568/2018

The applicant's grounds were unsupported by evidence and contradicted his in-court statements; the Adjudicator and Board properly considered the evidence and COI and reasonably concluded the claim was vague, unsubstantiated and that internal relocation was feasible; therefore the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
24 Aug 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1925
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL807/2017

Leave refused because the Director and Board lawfully concluded the assault was an isolated, non-targeted incident not meeting the torture/Article 3 threshold, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness such as would give a real prospect of success on judicial review.