Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Minor representation

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

SUSI-SUSYANTI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1551/2020

The court refused extension and dismissed the 1st Applicant's leave application because the six‑month delay was inordinate, inadequately explained and the intended challenge lacked reasonably arguable grounds. The court granted leave to the 2nd Applicant because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to consider child‑specific persecution risk arising from racially mixed parentage and failed to apply high standards of fairness in respect of a minor; the court directed appointment of the Official Solicitor and procedural steps to pursue judicial review.
25 Jun 2025

RE NANIK SULASTRI KUWAT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 577
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV386/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to identify viable grounds to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave: the Board's credibility findings and risk assessments were within its province and not shown to be legally defective, the minors' claims were dependent on the rejected mother's evidence and the Board separately considered the children's positions, and the lack of legal representation for the minors was a mere irregularity not warranting leave.
26 Apr 2024

RE CASUGA JENILYN DILIM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 365
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV319/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable grounds of judicial review demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's factual findings as to dissipation of risk and availability of state protection were not shown to be legally flawed, and the 2nd applicant's lack of separate legal representation was a mere irregularity given there were no arguable minor-specific grounds.
27 Feb 2024

RE LUU THI HOA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 174
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV311/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable legal ground to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave: the Board's adverse factual and credibility findings, supported by country information, were not shown to be legally erroneous, and the minor's claim depended entirely on the parents' failed claim so no separate minor-specific ground justified leave.
9 Jan 2024

IQBAL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 130
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL314/2019

Leave refused because applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's findings that the risk was low, that the dispute was private, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were supported by evidence; lack of legal representation for the minor did not reveal any unadvanced minor-specific grounds requiring relief.
13 Sept 2023

RO\'YUN NACHIF AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2320
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1253/2019

Leave refused because applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board reasonably found the risk localized and negated by state protection and feasible internal relocation and gave adequate, separate consideration to the minor's claim such that absence of legal representation was only an irregularity not warranting leave.
29 Dec 2022

RE NANI NURNANI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1895
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP197/2022

Extension of time refused because applicants failed to give any good reason for delay, presented no arguable grounds to impugn the Board’s fact‑based findings or to demonstrate error of law, and there was no material showing the minor’s claim had not been properly considered; non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 treated as a mere irregularity given lack of merit.
25 Oct 2022

VIRKARANJIT SINGH AND OTHERRS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL412/2019

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning and hearing evidence, internal relocation and state protection were viable alternatives, and the minor's lack of representation did not reveal a meritorious, unconsidered minor-specific claim.
5 Jul 2022

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2030
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL12/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any significant change in circumstances that, taken with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's and Board's findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
5 Jul 2022

ZORAYDAH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2034
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL57/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that would give the subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abusive re-litigation of the same facts.