Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Child-specific considerations

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

AGUINENSOR CECILE LUMACANG AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1063/2020

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the application because the applicants' intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success, the Board's findings that the non-refoulement claims were unsubstantiated were not shown to be challengeable, and the court's service by ordinary post was valid leading to deemed receipt; accordingly no extension of time was justified.
15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1165/2025

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence including child-specific issues, its findings that state protection was available and that the applicants were unreliable were not vitiated by public law error, and the applicants lacked a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.
31 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2742/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board had addressed the daughter's situation, applied advanced standards of fairness, found no realistic prospect that the daughter would face real harm on return, and there were no unraised child-specific grounds; accordingly supervisory intervention was unwarranted and non-compliance with Order 80 r 2 was only a mere irregularity.
10 Mar 2026

YARANON MA SHEILA ELPA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 128
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants advanced no viable grounds to overturn the judge's dismissal of leave and the Board's findings—that family acceptance and lack of contact by the husband removed a real risk, and that COI did not establish stigmatization reaching the required severity—were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
9 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1086/2020

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any realistic or arguable ground of review, including any child-specific issue that the Board had failed to consider; the Board's factual findings that the threats were not credible and that state protection in Nepal was available were within its fact-finding remit; non-compliance with Order 80 r.2 was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the 2nd applicant's application, therefore the supervisory court must not substitute its own findings and must dismiss the leave application.
2 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL109/2025

Leave was granted because the Board demonstrably failed to afford procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing and by failing to consider child-specific claims of the 2nd and 3rd applicants separately, the minors were not legally represented before a differently constituted Board, and the Board did not follow directions of the Court of Appeal, warranting judicial review.
10 Jun 2025

HANGILI GEDARA IMALKA PRIYADARSHANINE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1918
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL610/2025

The court found the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances or to provide new material satisfying s37ZO; the first applicant relied on the same discredited evidence previously rejected by the Board; there was no realistic prospect of success for the subsequent claim; and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process and re-litigation of identical claims, extended to the child whose claim depends on the same facts.
29 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1743
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL245/2024

Leave was refused because the Board and Director had properly applied the law and conducted thorough fact-finding including child-specific issues at the rehearing; there was no identifiable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness and therefore no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review; judicial review cannot be used to re-litigate credibility and risk assessments made by the primary decision-makers.
7 Oct 2024

COMPAY IRENE NAVARRO AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2497
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL550/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's and Director's credibility findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within lawful bounds, no child-specific issues requiring intervention were shown, and procedural irregularity did not render the applications a nullity.
4 Oct 2024

FITRI ANDARU AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1850/2023

The applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's fact-findings that past ill-treatment was of low intensity/frequency, that there was no state involvement or means to locate the applicants, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be irrational or procedurally unfair; the 2nd applicant's appeal had been considered with legal representation before the Board; no breach of procedural fairness or entitlement to continuous free translation was established; leave for judicial review is refused.