Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Persecution risk

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL571/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly and rationally assessed the evidence and COI, the applicant failed to discharge the burden to show substantial grounds for non-refoulement protection, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Decision.
24 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL439/2022

Leave was refused because the Form 86 failed to plead clear, particularised and arguable grounds against the Board; the Board had applied the correct legal tests, reached conclusions that did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (including findings that past ill-treatment lacked requisite severity and that state protection/internal relocation were available), and the applicant's challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
23 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1226
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL103/2022

Leave is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground; the Board adequately considered the evidence and reasonably concluded there was no persecution or torture risk; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and no realistic prospect of success.
11 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2022

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review and the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 985
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL946/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, the Board's adverse credibility and delay findings were justified, the risk was assessed as low and internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available, and the applicant subsequently confirmed she no longer objected to returning to India.
13 Feb 2026

ARZAGA CHRISTOPHER JOHN CO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL931/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify grounds or make full disclosure in the Form 86 and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available rendered the intended challenge not reasonably arguable.
28 Jan 2026

GARDOSE JECEL FLORENTINO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 559
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL409/2023

Leave dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; their findings that the risk was localized, threats were not shown to be real and substantial, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that COI supported relocation were open to them and not subject to reversal on judicial review.
28 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 83
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1367/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 and Affirmation failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review or to disclose material facts; on anxious scrutiny the TCAB/NRCPO decision showed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality, and its findings on state protection and internal relocation were within the decision-maker's province and fatal to the applicant's claim, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
24 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1441/2020

The court dismissed the application for leave because the Form 86 failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review; the TCAB/NRCPO gave detailed, reasoned findings on credibility and risk which were within its primary fact-finding remit; there was no identifiable procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision, and therefore no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
24 Dec 2025

IFEANYI JOHN DIKEMENYI alias ADJEI JOHN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6162
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1389/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because (1) the applicant failed to identify any grounds of judicial review or make full and frank disclosure; (2) on anxious scrutiny the TCAB/NRCPO gave salient reasons and there were no reasonably arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness sufficient to vitiate its decision; and (3) the application was brought over 40 months out of time with no acceptable explanation, so there was no good reason to extend time.