Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

MOHAMMED MUNNA alias NIAZ ALAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1958
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1499/2020

No reasonably arguable public law ground was established: the TCAB/NRCPO had properly assessed evidence, risk, state protection and internal relocation within its primary fact‑finding remit, and there was no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality to vitiate the decision; post‑hearing medical documents did not create a realistic prospect of success, therefore leave was refused.
24 Mar 2026

SURITA BT SUTA JAELANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1695
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL289/2024

Leave dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; their findings that the risk was localized, state protection was available and internal relocation was reasonable were rational and supported by evidence, and judicial review cannot be used as a rehearing of the merits.
6 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 786
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1451/2020

Applicant failed to particularise any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review; careful scrutiny of the TCAB Decision shows no procedural unfairness, legal error or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision; TCAB's findings that there was no real risk of torture/persecution, that state protection existed and internal relocation was available, meant the refusal of non-refoulement protection was lawful; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
4 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5516
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1419/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to identify any particularised grounds of review and the Affirmation contained only generic, unparticularised complaints; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk were within its primary fact‑finding province, supported by reasons (including finding of fabricated documentary evidence), and disclosed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to found a reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.
11 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1346/2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB/NRCPO decision, examined with enhanced scrutiny, disclosed no procedural unfairness, legal error or irrationality in its credibility, risk or relocation findings; and the Director's decision was not properly the subject of judicial review after the applicant pursued the appeal to TCAB/NRCPO.
17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1489/2020

The court dismissed leave because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review or to show procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO decision; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were within its fact-finding province and did not disclose public law grounds for intervention under the enhanced Wednesbury standard, so leave could not be granted.
18 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL580/2020

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review; after anxious scrutiny the NRCPO's BOR 2 decision showed adequate reasoning and lawful application of the enhanced standard; there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review must be dismissed.
8 Jul 2025

SHABBIR MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL109/2020

The Board was legally wrong to dismiss the appeal without rehearing or receiving additional evidence and to rely on res judicata; there was procedural unfairness in failing to afford an oral hearing despite the applicant's request and circumstances; the short delay in filing was excused and an extension was granted and leave to apply for judicial review allowed as the application was reasonably arguable.
3 Jan 2025

BALANON RAQUEL GURION v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 51
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV371/2024

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Judge correctly concluded there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review and refused leave; the Court of Appeal found no viable ground to reverse that decision and dismissed the appeal.
1 Feb 2024

SUJIYEM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1812/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success; the court made an RPO to prevent abuse of process as the applicant sought to re‑litigate previously dismissed claims for the purpose of remaining in Hong Kong.