Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement (article 33 refugee convention)

Legal area

Court

16 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL945/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds and the court, on anxious scrutiny, found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board lawfully and fairly assessed evidence including state protection and internal relocation, thus the enhanced Wednesbury test was satisfied and leave must be refused.
21 Nov 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2914
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1141/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence (vagueness, inability to answer questions, delay) and the Board reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
15 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2044
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1126/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the claimed risk was not substantial and that protection/internal relocation were available involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality.
6 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 243
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL735/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable and the applicant therefore lacked a realistic prospect of success.
31 Dec 2021

NGUYEN THI KHANH HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1592/2021

Extension of time was refused and the application dismissed because the delay was significant and unjustified and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success; the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality and its findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were open to the Board on the evidence.
17 Jun 2020

HUSSAIN BABAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1212
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1008/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had a statutory appeal to the Board which had been heard and decided, there were no exceptional circumstances to permit direct judicial review of the Director's decision, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success given the unsubstantiated, internally inconsistent evidence and his refusal to cooperate with the Adjudicator.
11 Jun 2020

FAKIR MOHAMMAD EDDRIS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1126
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL674/2018

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's factual risk assessments; the proven risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and therefore there were no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review; leave is refused.
23 May 2019

HOSSAIN MOHAMMED NUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1279
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1190/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings were intact and dispositive, the applicant could not identify any specific procedural unfairness or outdated COI that undermined the decision, and prior legal representation at the Director stage meant absence of counsel at the appeal did not establish unfairness.
24 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 485
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL60/2018

No leave was granted because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal or procedural ground: the TCAB Adjudicator lawfully applied the correct principles, made open-to-the-judge credibility findings based on inconsistencies and lack of specificity, afforded proper opportunities to the applicant, and there was no evidence of unfairness or error of law; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
20 Dec 2018

BEPARI MANIK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2638
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL98/2018

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were general and unparticularised, the Board made reasoned credibility findings after hearing evidence which were open to it, there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and internal relocation and low assessed risk meant no real prospect of success on judicial review.