Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extended state acquiescence

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2025

EVI GIATRI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2153/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and unparticularised and failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's coherent findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and COI supported those findings; the applicant also confirmed she could safely return, removing prospect of success.
24 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1873/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the Board's factual findings and credibility assessments fell within its primary fact‑finding role and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
22 Nov 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1119/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by oral hearing and detailed reasons; COI and internal relocation conclusions were rational; applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised and thus not reasonably arguable.
25 Jul 2019

RE KASHIF ANWAR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 817
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/2019

The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, his complaints lacked meaningful particulars and were largely a re-run of matters for the Director/Board, and there was no basis to grant leave under the alternative limb; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
10 Jul 2019

AFSAR KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 751
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2019

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judge's refusal of leave because the judge failed to address whether, given fresh BOR 2 materials, the TCAB should have afforded an oral hearing to enable clarification and whether the appellant suffered prejudice from any procedural unfairness; accordingly the appellant was granted leave to apply for judicial review.
14 Jun 2019

FADYA KHOLYQUMINA RIZKY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 661
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/2019

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant's grounds had no realistic prospect of success and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; statutory criteria for granting leave were therefore not met.
2 May 2019

RE MUNNA MOHAMMAD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 468
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV566/2018

The judge correctly refused leave because the Board made reasoned factual findings that the applicant's evidence was vague and untruthful, there was no public law error or procedural unfairness, the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, and judicial review cannot operate as a further appeal of the Board's factual evaluation.
10 Apr 2019

RE AI DODOH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 282
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV350/2018

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s.22(1)(b) Cap 484, the complaints were directed at the Board and Director rather than the judgment below and were not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb.
25 Feb 2019

AL MOMIN CHOWDHURY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 213
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV446/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable point or any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap. 484; the application merely repeated grounds already rejected and showed no prospect of success.
3 Dec 2018

RE HOSSAIN MD FARUK

Citation

[2018] HKCA 839
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP94/2018

The application to extend time to appeal was refused because the applicant was late by about one month, provided no explanation for the delay, gave no proposed grounds or particulars demonstrating any realistic prospect of success, and the leave judge correctly found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; absence of prospects of success is decisive against granting an extension of time.