Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Child-specific claims

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2026

GALLEGO VALDES MARIA MELEK (a minor) by her mother and next friend ANZOLA SANCHEZ YESICA DANIELA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2551/2024

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or failure to apply high standards of fairness in the Board's decision; the Board properly assessed credibility, considered relevant COI, and reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, such that there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
20 Feb 2025

DAINI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL148/2019

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicants were inordinate and unjustifiably delayed (approximately 11 months), provided no satisfactory explanation or corroboration for delay, and their intended grounds lacked any reasonably arguable merit; the Board and Director had given detailed reasons, conducted an oral hearing, and there was no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
3 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2446
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL765/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants' intended grounds lacked any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were not shown to be legally flawed, and no child‑specific non‑refoulement grounds were advanced that the Board had failed to consider.
11 Sept 2023

DOAN THI HA AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2307
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1030/2019

The Court refused leave because the Board's findings were within its exclusive fact-finding remit, supported by evidence and credible country information, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the Board's decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; consequently the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
25 Oct 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL654/2019

Failure to ensure the 2nd applicant, a minor, had legal representation before the Board and the consequent lack of adequate consideration of child-specific non-refoulement risks constituted a procedural irregularity under the Rules of the High Court warranting grant of leave to apply for judicial review; accordingly leave was granted and the Official Solicitor directed to represent the minor, with further directions for case management.
21 Jul 2022

RE LIANA RISDIANTI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1058
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/2022

The 1st Applicant's appeal was dismissed because the Board's adverse factual findings on credibility, risk from husband and loan shark, state protection and internal relocation were open to it and no public law error was shown. The 2nd Applicant's appeal was allowed insofar as there was a reasonably arguable, child-specific basis that the Board did not adequately consider (including potential societal discrimination, mixed-race/illegitimacy issues and unclear nationality), warranting leave to apply for judicial review; procedural noncompliance was treated as an irregularity and the Official S…
29 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1981
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL241/2019

Extension of time and leave were refused because applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: no child-specific grounds were advanced that were not before the Board, the Board's fact findings on low intensity of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be legally flawed or procedurally unfair, and delay and lack of merit justified refusal.
4 Mar 2021

RE MANGAL SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 227
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP287/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable or discernible error in the Court of Appeal judgment, advanced no new admissible ground of sufficient public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and the Board had properly and separately assessed the children’s claims such that there were no child‑specific non‑refoulement grounds to warrant permitting an appeal to the CFA.