Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Religious persecution

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1804/2020

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; their adverse credibility findings, assessment of low risk of proscribed harm and availability of reasonable internal relocation were justified on the evidence and not susceptible to successful judicial review.
25 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4281
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL643/2020

Leave was granted because the applicant demonstrated reasonably arguable errors of law and procedural unfairness: potential misapplication of the 'reasonably tolerable' test contrary to HJ (Iran) UKSC, inadequate assessment of state protection without proper reference to adverse COI and reasons, and flawed internal relocation analysis by failing to consider the persecutor's reach and the applicant's personal circumstances, meeting the threshold for leave.
3 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3944
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1068/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision, and the TCAB's factual and risk assessments (including availability of internal relocation) were within reasonable bounds, making judicial review inappropriate as a merits appeal.
21 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2108/2024

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare assertions without particulars, he failed to attend and substantiate complaints, the Board's factual findings on credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation were within its province, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review.
13 Feb 2025

MUNA KALA RAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL751/2017

Leave was refused because both the Director and the Board gave reasons, the applicant had interpreter assistance and had legal representation at screening but elected not to give further evidence at the Board, the alleged past ill-treatment was localized and of low intensity, state protection and reasonable internal relocation within Nepal were available, and there was no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decisions sufficient to found an arguable judicial review claim.
15 Nov 2024

JOHNSON BENJAMIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3011
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1184/2023

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by omissions, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration and fell squarely within the Board's fact‑finding discretion; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
17 Oct 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1246/2021

There was no reasonably arguable legal basis for judicial review because the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally evaluated the evidence, concluded risk was low due to absence of serious past ill‑treatment, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant failed to identify error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness, therefore leave is dismissed.
25 Apr 2024

SINGH YUVRAJDEEP AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1145
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL315/2019

Leave was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, made credibility findings supported by the evidence, reasonably concluded the risk was private not state‑sourced, identified available state protection and feasible internal relocation, and the application raised no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so there was no realistic prospect of success.
27 Jul 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2308
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL97/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded there were no substantial grounds for believing the applicant faced a real risk of proscribed harm: the threats were localized and low intensity, state protection and internal relocation were available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified; therefore there was no arguable ground for judicial review and the application lacked prospects of success.
7 Jan 2022

LE THU HOA 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 27
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL96/2019

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's challenge attacked the appeal board's factual findings and credibility assessments which were amply supported by the evidence; no legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury‑level irrationality was shown, therefore there was no arguable ground for judicial review.