Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State protection/due diligence

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1365/2021

Leave was refused because the Board had considered the Applicant's evidence and grounds, the Applicant had legal representation and opportunity to be heard, and there was no identified error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Applicant lacked a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.
17 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5438
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1730/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacking necessary particulars such that they were not reasonably arguable, and because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably found the risk to be localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
29 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2365/2020

The applicant failed to identify any arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Director's decision was superseded by the Board and not reviewable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the leave application dismissed.
4 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4021
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1205/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success; the Board's Decision was comprehensive, addressed Article 2 HKBORO, and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; the Applicant declined to provide or identify additional evidence and did not demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Director's earlier decision was not reviewable after appeal to the Board.
14 Nov 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2924
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL337/2019

Refusal to extend time: the applicant's delay of over 14 months was substantial and unjustified by detention circumstances; the proposed grounds were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment of state protection and internal relocation were not vitiated by legal error or procedural unfairness; therefore no prospect of success and no good reason to extend time, so leave was refused and application dismissed.
24 Feb 2023

AMBAR ASTUTIYANINGSIH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL838/2019

Leave was refused and the application dismissed because the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Board's findings were rational and lawful, there was no evidence of state involvement or acquiescence, internal relocation was available, the central new allegations were not advanced below and conflicted with the recorded basis of the claim, and the applicant's prolonged delay and failure to prosecute undermined the application.
17 Jun 2022

SITI-KHOMARIYAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1663
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL58/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably found the risk to be localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified.
6 Jul 2021

SHAH SYED QASID HUSSAIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 964
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV575/2020

The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to identify specific, reasonably arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and internal relocation conclusion were within its province and not vitiated by public law grounds, so leave was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.
2 Mar 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 419
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL614/2017

The Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably considered the available COI and evidence, found the dispute to be a private feud with low risk of torture or ill‑treatment, concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available, and the applicant failed to adduce evidence to the contrary or to identify missing COI; accordingly there was no arguable basis for judicial review and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
26 Jan 2018

MESTIYAH v. CHOW SIU-HUNG, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 48
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL178/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were rational, supported by reasons, and the decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable and, even if her evidence were accepted, COI showed state protection and no real risk on any applicable ground, so there was no realistic prospect of success.