Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement (bor2)

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4690
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1891/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCABs Decision of 16 September 2020; the TCAB had considered the evidence, applied correct principles on BOR2, and reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available.
3 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2028
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL181/2020

Leave was refused because the Director's decisions were not amenable to judicial review after appeal to the Board, the Applicant failed to show any arguable public law error or real prospect of success, and he suffered no prejudice from the alleged lack of language assistance or legal representation; the Board's credibility and risk assessments were open to it and were not vitiated by procedural unfairness.
12 Jan 2024

DIL BAHADUR RAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 8
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV242/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable legal error in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's factual findings that the applicant's evidence was fabricated or speculative and that there was no BOR2 risk were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success (also having failed to comply with procedural directions).
29 Apr 2021

RE PADIKKASU KASINATHAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 596
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV275/2020

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific or arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment and did not raise any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; procedural and hearing complaints had been considered and rejected on the merits.
5 Mar 2019

RUSTAM ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL284/2017

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for a delay of approximately 399 days and the proposed appeal, based solely on lack of representation at the BOR2 assessment, had no real prospect of success; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

DIL BAHADUR RAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RE PADIKKASU KASINATHAN

RUSTAM ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE