Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave for judicial review

Legal area

Court

19 May 2026

RE KOROTENKO OKSANA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 984
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2026

Although the Judge erred in dismissing the leave application on the mistaken basis that the applicant had been repatriated, the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk and relocation assessments were open on the evidence and did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
14 May 2026

SITI MAYSAROH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL795/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legally arguable error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies and the availability of internal relocation was a valid basis to reject the claim, making the proposed challenge without a prospect of success.
13 May 2026

HOANG NGUYEN PHUC DUONG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2545
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL865/2025

Extension of time refused because applicants failed to provide valid reasons for the more than six months' delay and their intended appeal lacked any realistic prospect of success; the Board properly discharged its duty in assessing internal relocation and child-specific issues did not apply as the applicants had become adults, therefore extension was not justified.
12 May 2026

NJIE SAMUEL JOHN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 956
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2026

The Board lawfully exercised its discretion under s37ZT by finding the applicant's reasons for delay unsatisfactory and by considering the merits; there was no demonstrable public law error in the Board's or the judge's decisions and therefore the refusal of extension of time and leave for judicial review was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
12 May 2026

MALIK INZAMAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 817
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV148/2026

The applicant failed to demonstrate any public law error in the Board's factual findings or in the Judge's refusal to grant leave; the Board's conclusions on severity of past ill-treatment, absence of public official involvement, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were open on the evidence, so the Court dismissed the appeal.
5 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2546
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL820/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of judicial review and the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable.
27 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1906
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL620/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, failed to state grounds for judicial review, and the Board had reasonably assessed credibility, risk and internal relocation such that the challenge was not reasonably arguable.
14 Apr 2026

RENI WIDIASTUTIK AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1536/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused for the 1st Applicant because no reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified in the Board’s assessment of her claim; leave was granted for the 2nd Applicant because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to give separate and adequate consideration to the child’s claim, including failure to make findings on her nationality/right to return and failure to consider her racially mixed parentage in assessing persecution risk, thereby meeting the leave threshold.
10 Apr 2026

YENI ASTUTI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 556
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV444/2024

The Judge's Order was set aside because he overlooked that the 1st Applicant had made a subsequent non-refoulement claim dismissed by the Director and the Board; therefore both Applicants' leave applications must be remitted to the Court of First Instance to be determined by a different judge; no order as to costs.
31 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1335/2022

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of judicial review or point to errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB applied correct legal principles, its factual findings were supported by the evidence and it reasonably concluded there was no foreseeable risk, with state protection and internal relocation available, so there was no reasonably arguable case.