Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and delay

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2488/2025

The extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the application was filed more than two and a half months late without good reason, the applicant failed to identify arguable legal error in the Board's decision, and the Board's adverse credibility findings together with conclusions that relocation and state protection were viable meant there was no realistic prospect of success.
16 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL372/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds, relied on new evidence arising after the Board's decision which is not admissible at the leave stage, and the Board's decision contained detailed fact findings and legal analysis which displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; the applicant's credibility was further undermined by delay.
14 Nov 2024

ISHAR ANDRIANA BT BAHARU DIN S v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL824/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; credibility findings, material delay, the private nature of the dispute, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation rendered the non‑refoulement claim untenable and not arguable on judicial review.
19 Jun 2024

RE LORENZO JONALYN IBUS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 543
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV410/2023

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Judge's refusal of leave because the Board applied the correct legal tests, its factual findings were within its exclusive province and not tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to identify specific viable grounds or particulars showing a realistic prospect of success.
11 Apr 2024

MALLARE LAURO MAGBITANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1307/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, lack of reliable evidence of targeting, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful findings of fact and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and therefore judicial intervention was not warranted.
7 Dec 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1482/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced no arguable legal ground; the Board conducted a proper screening interview, applied the correct legal principles, relied appropriately on COI, made permissible findings on credibility and internal relocation and the Decision was not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational.
30 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL815/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on credibility, low risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality warranting judicial review.
6 Apr 2023

PHAM THI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 771
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL959/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that the alleged past ill-treatment did not attain requisite severity, that there was no state involvement, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were supported by evidence and law and did not disclose error of law or procedural unfairness.
29 Jun 2022

CHITEMERE RYAN FARAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1972
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1699/2021

The Board's findings on credibility, absence of concrete evidence of targeted state action, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were lawful and rational; there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, and the applicant therefore had no realistic prospect of success — leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
11 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 715
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL862/2019

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; their findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and credibility issues justified dismissal were open to them and not for the court to overturn on judicial review.