Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refugee law

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1234/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularize reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success and did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; accordingly leave is refused and the attempted withdrawal is refused and the application dismissed.
19 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1537
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2159/2023

The court refused the applicant's withdrawal application and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to file the required affirmation or statement within the time directed, thereby evincing no intention to prosecute; on merits the court, after anxious scrutiny, found no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's Decision.
17 Mar 2026

LE THI HAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1375/2021

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success in the subsequent claim; there were no arguable public law grounds to impugn the Director's decision and the court will not substitute its own factual findings for the Director's.
10 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1837/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable public law ground: the Board, as primary decision-maker, lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence and made findings that the applicant suffered only minor injuries and did not meet thresholds for torture/CIDTP, BOR 2/3 or refugee recognition; moreover the two-tier USM process prevents a direct misconceived challenge to the Director's decision.
21 Nov 2025

KULDEEP SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1343/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application failed to identify particularised and reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success, parts of the challenge were not reviewable after the petition process, the NRCPO lawfully considered the merits and delay under the Ordinance, procedural fairness standards were met, and remittal would be futile.
21 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2192/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board applied the correct legal tests, its adverse factual findings were sustainable and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the applicant lacked particularised and arguable grounds, and the applicant's inordinate delay (approximately 3 years 6 months) did not justify an extension of time.
12 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5157
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1092/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board reasonably found the claim unsubstantiated, state protection and internal relocation available, and no cogent basis for judicial intervention existed.
3 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5038
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2310/2020

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicant filed more than seven months late without an adequate explanation and had no realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings were within its primary fact‑finding province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
31 Jul 2025

RASHED JOARDER alias RASHED RASHEDUL ISLAM RASHED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3062
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL544/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB/NRCPO had given adequate reasons and its findings on Persecution, BOR 2/3 and Torture risks were not shown to be legally erroneous or irrational under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; and, to the extent the applicant sought to challenge the Director's decisions directly, the two-tier system and lack of exceptional circumstances required dismissal.
18 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL580/2020

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review; after anxious scrutiny the NRCPO's BOR 2 decision showed adequate reasoning and lawful application of the enhanced standard; there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review must be dismissed.