Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement (refoulement)

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1950/2025

The court allowed the withdrawal because it was satisfied on the applicant's affirmation that the withdrawal was voluntary, that she understood the finality of the Board's decision and the risk of refoulement, and that she wished to return to her home country; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was withdrawn.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1019/2022

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed well beyond the statutory three-month limit with no application for extension or explanation, and because the Board's decision withstands review — it rationally assessed the evidence, COI and internal relocation and disclosed no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness that would give the applicant a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.
9 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2375/2024

Leave refused because the Form 86 was filed 52 days out of time without satisfactory explanation, the applicant's grounds were bare and unparticularised, the Board correctly applied the statutory scheme (s37ZT/ s37ZV) in refusing late filing of the NOA, and no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness was demonstrated such that the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospects of success.
3 Jul 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1696
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL987/2019

Leave was refused because the Board's decision did not disclose any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board reasonably found low intensity and infrequency of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation, and the applicant lacked a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
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.
11 Oct 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3138
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1079/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were open on the evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
5 Jun 2020

ORTEGA MARCELO JR. ESPINOSA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1021
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1624/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a reasonable prospect of success; the Director's decision was not amenable to review once an appeal to the Board was pursued; and the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were not shown to be erroneous.
1 Aug 2019

RE ASIF MUHAMMAD alias CHOUDHRY SOHAIL AHMAD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 838
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV131/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions about internal relocation were properly reached after hearing the applicant; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success at judicial review and procedural non-compliance justified dealing with the appeal on paper.
10 Apr 2019

RE MITTAL SANJEEV

Citation

[2019] HKCA 409
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP176/2018

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the intended appeal had no prospect of success: the only proposed ground (family circumstances) is not a ground for non-refoulement and there was no arguable procedural unfairness arising from lack of legal or language assistance given the applicant's participation and the evidence before the Board.