Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reliance on country of origin information

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2025

DINH QUANG TRUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5107
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars and therefore were not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably found low risk, credibility defects, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified; applicant later affirmed it was safe to return.
10 Oct 2025

ALAM SHAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 886
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2025

Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with court directions and prosecute the leave application and, on examination, the Board's decision disclosed no reasonably arguable public law error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality that would justify intervention.
22 Aug 2024

SUKHDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 761
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP354/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to demonstrate any prospects of success; therefore the Notice of Motion was dismissed.
3 Nov 2023

KHAN AJAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1209
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP91/2022

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; there was no reason to depart from the practice of deciding the application without an oral hearing.
11 Jan 2022

RE PEPITO DYESEBEL LEOPOLDO

Citation

[2022] HKCA 70
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV219/2020

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) CFAO, raised no reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, and offered no basis for leave under the "otherwise" limb; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
17 Dec 2021

RE GULZAR MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1890
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP156/2020

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, his allegations of bias were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable, and he failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 which led to debarment from lodging written submissions; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave.
6 Dec 2021

RE CHAYAL MAHABUB

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1812
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP286/2019

The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and raised no ground that was reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
27 Jun 2019

RE JARNAIL SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 707
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2018

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with an unless order and did not seek relief under the procedural rule, showed no intention to prosecute the appeal, and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any basis under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484; accordingly the motion lacked merit.
8 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 311
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL832/2018

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise the procedural fairness complaints before the Board, had available avenues to seek assistance but did not, was not shown to be prejudiced at the hearing, and the Board permissibly relied on recognised COI; accordingly the application had no reasonable chance of success.