Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement claims

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1743
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL481/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any ground of review or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board had adequately assessed the evidence and given reasons; Form 86 was amended to name the correct parties.
31 Mar 2026

SAEED UR REHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL98/2026

The detention was lawful: the Secretary/Director intended to deport and acted with reasonable diligence; a valid RO/DO and an issued emergency travel document existed; the applicant's protracted delay in pursuing his non-refoulement claim and active refusal to cooperate, coupled with a history of absconding, jumping bail and serious convictions, meant the 138-day detention remained reasonable under the Hardial Singh balancing exercise; accordingly habeas corpus relief was refused.
30 Mar 2026

FAHEEM CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL60/2026

Detention was lawful and not rendered unlawful by its duration because it was authorised by the Immigration Ordinance, there was no legal impediment to removal, the Secretary and Director acted with reasonable diligence, and the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with obtaining travel documentation was the primary cause of delay which cannot be used to render an otherwise lawful detention unlawful; risks of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention.
26 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1712
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL421/2022

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was justified because there was an unexplained delay of about 1.5 years and the intended judicial review lacked reasonable arguability and realistic prospects of success given the Board's comprehensive reasons and absence of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
25 Mar 2026

NGUYEN VAN HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1380/2020

Extension of time refused because the 51‑day delay was inordinate and unjustified despite applicant's detention, service to the applicant's known address was regular, the intended appeal had no real prospect of success (applicant had not read the Decision and relied solely on lack of representation), and therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time.
24 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL171/2022

The Director's decision was superseded by the Board's decision upon appeal and thus not susceptible to judicial review; alternatively, any challenge to the Board's Decision lacked a reasonably arguable prospect of success and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so leave was properly dismissed.
17 Mar 2026

WAQAS MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 446
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV341/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal of leave, presented only general allegations without particulars or viable grounds, and therefore there was no basis to overturn the refusal of leave or to grant anonymity.
16 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1212
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL276/2022

Dismissal of the leave application was warranted because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground with a realistic prospect of success; the Board had properly considered the evidence and COI, lawfully concluded the alleged conduct did not meet the threshold for non-refoulement protection and that internal relocation was available, and there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
11 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1131
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL15/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success: the Board had adequately considered the evidence, made credible findings rejecting the applicant’s accounts, identified viable internal relocation, found no evidence of state collusion or disproportionate risk, and its decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1359/2023

The withdrawal request was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant confirmed it was now safe to return to her country, rendering the non-refoulement claim and any judicial review remedy otiose; accordingly, even if the Board erred, there was no practical purpose in granting relief.