Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Persecution

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1907/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground with realistic prospects, the Board's decision contained full reasons and was free of legal error, procedural unfairness and irrationality, and the applicant failed to establish a real risk of torture, death or persecution or state acquiescence such that intervention by the court was warranted.
20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1311/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, and therefore had no realistic prospect of succeeding on judicial review.
18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1339/2025

Leave was refused and no extension of time granted because the applicant failed to identify grounds or to make full disclosure in Form 86, failed to demonstrate any public law error in the Board's decision (whose factual findings are not displaced absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality), and provided no explanation for the nearly two‑month delay beyond the three‑month limit.
18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2678
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1790/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's Form 86 lacked clear grounds and particulars, the supporting affirmation was vague, the Board's findings of fact showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable; the applicant's handwritten letter was treated as a withdrawal and the matter was decided on the papers.
15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2496
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1375/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds; the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the Board applied the correct law, so the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2462
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1541/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds or make full and frank disclosure in Form 86, and the Board's decision contained no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board applied the correct legal tests and its factual findings were not open to challenge on judicial review.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1472/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings; her grounds were general and unsupported by evidence and thus she had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review, so leave is refused.
6 May 2026

MD NAZRUL ISLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2627
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1010/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable ground; the Board lawfully and fairly assessed evidence and country information and its decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there were no realistic prospects of success.
5 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2002
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL603/2024

Leave was dismissed because the applicant filed her Form 86 some 2.5 months out of time with no explanation, failed to identify any arguable legal ground, and the Board and Director’s decisions showed no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness; adverse credibility findings were supportable on the evidence and reasonable internal relocation was available, so there was no prospect of success.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1461/2025

Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the Board accepted the facts but reasonably concluded risks were unsubstantiated, state protection existed and internal relocation was viable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.