Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑refoulement/torture risk

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4496
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1509/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to plead any reasonably arguable, particularised ground of review and the application was filed well beyond the statutory 3‑month period with no good reason to extend time; accordingly extension of time was refused and leave denied.
16 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL606/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; a rigorous anxious scrutiny of the TCAB/NRCPO decision disclosed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality and the TCAB/NRCPO had adequately reasoned findings on risk and internal relocation which are matters within the decision-maker's province.
22 Nov 2024

PHAM VAN DUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1088
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV352/2023

The judge did not commit an error of law or ignore relevant material; the applicant presented unsupported assertions and no realistic prospect of success on non‑refoulement grounds, therefore refusal of leave was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
3 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL404/2019

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was warranted because the applicant was more than 13 months late with no good reason for the delay and the intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable legal error or prospect of success given the Board's credible findings and lawful assessment that the risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available.
4 Nov 2021

RASHPAL SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3270
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL297/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of real risk, availability of police protection and internal relocation were within its province and plainly reasonable.
8 Jul 2021

有闗VU THI SUU的事宜

Citation

[2021] HKCA 986
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP199/2020

Extension was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on the merits of the proposed judicial review and did not identify any legal or procedural error in the Appeal Board's decision; consequently the delay could not be excused and the extension application was dismissed.
9 Feb 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 281
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1304/2018

Applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's assessment of evidence, risk of harm and viability of internal relocation fell within its proper evaluative province and was reasonably open on the material, therefore there was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review and leave was refused.
20 Jan 2021

MOHAMMAD WAQAS ALIAS WAJID ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 61
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV296/2020

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision or the judge's refusal of leave; he did not rebut the Board's detailed adverse credibility findings or show a real prospect of success on judicial review, therefore the appeal is dismissed and leave remains refused.