Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Family unity

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

DANGIW JUHREN DUMALILI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL341/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's findings of fact and assessments of risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its exclusive remit and were not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the enhanced Wednesbury test was not breached.
4 Feb 2026

AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2138/2020

The Director complied with section 37ZO and provided detailed reasons that there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success for a subsequent claim; the Director's factual findings were lawful, fair and not irrational; the applicant therefore failed to show a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects and leave was refused; because the applicant had repeatedly re-litigated an unmeritorious claim after exhausting appeals, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and proportionality to impose a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent fur…
2 Dec 2025

AHMED NIAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2137/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was brought out of time without a satisfactory explanation and the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success; the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore provided no basis for judicial review.
26 Aug 2025

NAVEED UR REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3833
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL758/2020

The Leave Application is dismissed because it was filed out of time with no explanation and no application for extension; even on merits the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality—the Board lawfully assessed evidence, applicant refused to answer key questions, and family separation did not constitute a proscribed form of harm under the USM.
1 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1084/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to establish any reasonably arguable ground of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board gave adequate reasons, its adverse credibility and relocation findings were open to it, and family unity does not afford a right to remain in Hong Kong under the circumstances.
1 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL905/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision was supported by adequate reasons, contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, properly assessed the low risk of serious harm and feasibility of internal relocation, and the family unity ground was inapplicable under s.11; therefore the challenge was not reasonably arguable.
2 Jul 2025

SOLIKATUN JANURI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2730
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL296/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds and the Board's Decision, which is the only decision open to judicial review, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; family unity did not prevent refoulement in the circumstances.
21 May 2024

ANOP PAN-IN alias PANG PO LUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1271/2019

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay of over 1 year 7 months was inordinate and unexplained; the intended grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable; the Board lawfully and properly rejected the claim on credibility and on findings that any risk was private and localized with internal relocation reasonably available; no legal error or procedural unfairness identified — consequently there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.
10 May 2010

FOK CHUN WA AND ANOTHER v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

FOK CHUN WA AND ANOTHER v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV30/2009

Court held the residency/HKID criterion and the related fee measures pursued legitimate aims and were rationally connected and within the permissible policy margin, so the discrimination challenge to the 2003, 2005 and 2007 decisions failed; however the Authority unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating waiver requests as non-justiciable blanket refusals, so the refusals to waive fees in 2007 were quashed and remitted for fresh lawful consideration.
24 Jan 2000

NGO THI MINH HUONG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NGO THI MINH HUONG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL137/1999

The court held the Director was not obliged to consider or determine the applicant's refugee claim when issuing a removal order for an illegal entrant; the discretion under s.13 is administrative with limited judicial review and does not impose a duty of procedural fairness in this context; adoption of UNHCR's view and awaiting its decision did not amount to unlawful delegation or Wednesbury unreasonableness, thus leave to apply for judicial review was refused.