Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrationality/wednesbury review

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL15/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB had properly considered the evidence, applied correct legal principles, and reached conclusions (no identification by enemies, no past serious harm, state protection/internal relocation available) that were open to it.
10 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 816
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL314/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of unlawful decision‑making; the Board had comprehensively considered the evidence and reasonably concluded there was no real risk of proscribed harm; there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the belated unsupported allegation did not establish a realistic prospect of success.
10 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL221/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground or realistic prospect of success; the Board's decision had comprehensively considered the evidence and COI and did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Applicant's adjournment request based on medical grounds was unsupported and denied.
26 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 58
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2455/2020

Leave was refused because the TCAB lawfully and properly applied the relevant legal principles, its adverse credibility and factual findings were open to it, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case for judicial review.
22 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL566/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal grounds and the TCAB decision, which correctly applied relevant legal principles and made permissible credibility and state protection findings, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus the challenge lacked a realistic prospect of success.
26 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1483/2020

The court concluded that the Board applied the law correctly, made permissible factual findings (including that the risk was speculative, injuries were minor, and state protection/internal relocation were available), and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the applicant's leave application was not reasonably arguable and must be dismissed.
7 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4576
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1937/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the TCAB had applied the correct legal principles, considered all materials, conducted credibility assessment and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review intervention.
27 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1494/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to particularise grounds or produce the promised further documents and the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's factual findings that risk was speculative and internal relocation was viable meant the challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
6 Aug 2025

KAMRAN JAVID v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2025] HKCA 731
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2023

The Court held that the Permanent Secretary had lawfully and rationally considered relevant factors (including the divorce and the ages of the children), that the Decisions were not Wednesbury irrational or unlawfully inconsistent with prior suspensions given material changes over time, that the alternative request to shorten the life deportation order was effectively a request to suspend/rescind and was addressed and refused, and that remittal would be futile; accordingly the appeal and summons are dismissed.
3 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2029
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL182/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable; the Board properly applied the law, fairly assessed credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation and made findings supported by the evidence, such that no public law ground for interference was established.