Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asylum claims

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

ANYIM INNOCENT ODICHUKWUNMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1895
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1159/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds, sought to rely on evidence not placed before the Board (which the court would not receive at this stage), and the Board's Decision contained coherent factual findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; consequently the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.
3 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL715/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal or procedural grounds, did not make full and frank disclosure or clarify critical factual issues, and the TCAB had applied correct legal principles and reached plausible findings that there was no real risk of proscribed harm, such that no realistic prospect of success was shown.
25 Feb 2025

KANDA JOAO PEDRO alias KIBESI NGITUKA YVES AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1718/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and COI-based conclusions that no real risk existed and that internal relocation/state protection were available were adequately supported and not irrational, and judicial review cannot be used to re-hear the merits.
4 Feb 2025

WARNAKULASURIYA RENUKA DAMA YAN THI TISERA COLOMBAGE FERNANDO DINESH ARAVINDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL94/2021

Although the Board may have erred in parts of its evaluation of the evidence of rape, the 1st Applicant produced no evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to PAP/UPFA and thus failed to establish the necessary factual nexus for protection; there is no realistic prospect of success and leave is refused. The 2nd Applicant's attempt to withdraw was not permitted as an informed withdrawal but, given his unequivocal intention not to prosecute and the absence of a realistic prospect, his leave application is dismissed for want of prosecution. The Board’s decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
19 Sept 2022

RE RONQUILLO MARITES GALIZA

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1355
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; the Board’s findings that effective state protection was available and internal relocation viable fall within its factual province and were not vitiated; the late-produced prison record did not render the Board’s assessment unsafe and was not shown to be unavailable with reasonable diligence.
4 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 900
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL918/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board permissibly drew adverse credibility inferences from the applicant's refusal to answer questions in breach of the statutory duty to cooperate under s37ZA; the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were within its fact‑finding discretion and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
17 Sept 2021

HOANG BICH NGOC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL739/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the application was out of time and, on the merits, the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions about low risk, available state protection and internal relocation contained no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
26 Mar 2021

IZEBHOR FESTUS OSAKWE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL682/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by hearing evidence and COI, the interpreter complaint was unsupported and speculative, and internal relocation rendered non-refoulement protection unnecessary.
27 Jun 2019

RE MUSED SHEKH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 724
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV598/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of review or any error of law or procedure; the Board's credibility and internal relocation findings were open on the facts; and the applicant's failure to comply with court directions to lodge skeleton submissions justified dealing with the appeal on paper; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and the appeal was dismissed.
29 Mar 2018

ABOAGYE RICHARDSON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL386/2017

Leave was refused because the adjudicator and Director lawfully and reasonably found the applicant not credible, there was no real personal risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or breach of right to life on return to Ghana, state protection and internal relocation were available, the claim was not reasonably arguable, and delay and proper respondent considerations meant judicial review should not proceed.