Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of refoulement

Legal area

Court

5 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2548
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL832/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead any arguable ground of judicial review or make full and frank disclosure; the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality given its findings on lack of real risk, availability of police protection and viable internal relocation, so there was no reasonably arguable case.
30 Apr 2026

INDERJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 780
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV346/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise or identify any error in the High Court judge's refusal of leave and raised only general allegations; no viable ground was advanced to reverse the judge's decision and the Court will not re-examine the Board's merits on appeal from a leave refusal.
22 Apr 2026

RE HENDRA BUDI SANTOSA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 732
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable ground showing the judge erred in law, overlooked relevant material or that the Board's factual findings (including that the loan had been settled and that internal relocation was available) were irrational or procedurally unfair; therefore there is no basis to grant leave or overturn the Board's decision.
2 Apr 2026

FALAL VELY KHOLIFAH BT SOFWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1731
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL532/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to advance any arguable grounds, the Board conducted a hearing and gave adequate reasons, and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention by judicial review.
27 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL148/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the purported ground was a general assertion lacking particulars, the applicant had the opportunity to clarify her case at the Board hearing, and the Board's assessment of credibility, COI, risk, state protection and internal relocation was legitimate and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
23 Mar 2026

RE BASIT ABDUL

Citation

[2026] HKCA 503
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify specific errors in the Deputy High Court Judge's Leave Decision; his assertions were general and lacked particulars and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown to justify interfering with the Leave Decision.
17 Mar 2026

SANTOS PETER FELIX GUMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 457
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV831/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's refusal to grant leave; the grounds were general and unparticularised, and there was no showing of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision that would justify judicial review.
17 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL293/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's comprehensive decision, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
10 Mar 2026

KHAN SHER alias IQBAL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL360/2022

The application for leave was refused and no extension of time granted because the applicant filed about two months out of time without explanation and the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success; the Board's Decision was comprehensive and free of errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so judicial review relief was not warranted.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1097
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL184/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success; the Board had comprehensively considered the evidence and COI and its conclusion that there was no real risk of proscribed harm was not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational.