Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility assessment

Legal area

Court

21 May 2026

NGUYEN THI KIM CHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1259/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision, the claim amounted to a merits challenge which is not for judicial review, and the Board's findings on credibility and internal relocation were not shown to be legally vitiated; the Form 86 was amended to correct the decision date and party designation.
20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2871
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1438/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions (no evidence of land dispute or state involvement and viability of internal relocation) were supported by the record, fell within the Board's fact-finding jurisdiction and disclosed no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention.
20 May 2026

NIA DANIATI BT HAMDAN USMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1075/2022

The Board's decision contained adequate reasons, applied the correct legal tests, considered the evidence and country of origin information, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect of success and was dismissed.
20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1643/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success on judicial review; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings and its conclusion that internal relocation was viable were within its fact-finding province and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
20 May 2026

LE VAN TRUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2650
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL671/2022

Six‑day delay lacked valid explanation; the intended appeal had no realistic prospect given the Board and Director found the non‑refoulement claim unsubstantiated; applying established factors, extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
20 May 2026

ULLAH SOHAIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1649/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than two months late, offered no valid explanation that would justify the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated and the risk of harm was low, applying the AW factors and authorities refusing extensions for hopeless appeals.
19 May 2026

VAITHILINGAM SIVARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL456/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation made return safe were within permissible evaluation and not susceptible to judicial intervention on review.
19 May 2026

RE IMRAN AHMAD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 963
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance viable grounds before the Judge, offered only general unsupported assertions, could not identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision (notably its credibility findings and COI assessment), and therefore his intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
19 May 2026

MAHAL HARPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2792
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL3/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board reasonably found the risk to be a localized private dispute, reasonably assessed credibility, and properly concluded state protection and internal relocation were available such that there was no realistic Article 3 or persecution risk warranting non-refoulement protection.
19 May 2026

RE JUKI PRATAMA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 962
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV210/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision or in the judge's refusal to extend time and refuse leave; the Board's credibility and internal relocation findings were open to it and not overturned on judicial review.