Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State protection/internal relocation

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1425/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced no arguable legal or procedural ground, sought only an opportunity to re-speak to the adjudicator, and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success given the Board's fact findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that CAT/CIDTP thresholds were not met and that reasonable state protection was available.
1 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2376/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's analysis was reasonable and logical and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial intervention.
19 Mar 2026

VU THI THU TRANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 468
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV58/2025

The Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy judge: the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions or in the judge's refusal of leave; the Board properly refused extension of time under the Immigration Ordinance; therefore there was no prospect of success and the appeal is dismissed.
17 Mar 2026

ALI BADASHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 334
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV325/2025

Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave; absent viable, particularised grounds the Court will not interfere with the Judge's decision or re-examine the Board's merits.
13 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 974
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1367/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection was available were within its fact-finding province and not irrational, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 492
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2581/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated were open to it given the applicant's failure to seek protection in India and absence of cogent evidence, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
28 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1273/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid legal ground or to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the court will not overturn the Board's credibility, state protection and risk findings absent identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
4 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5056
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1063/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse factual findings (that injuries were not serious and threats were empty) were rational and there was no established error of law or procedural unfairness justifying review.
15 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1541/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB had adequately considered the evidence, applied correct legal principles, made adverse credibility findings and found state protection/internal relocation available, so there was no reasonably arguable case for judicial review.
19 Aug 2025

ANOSIKE NNAMDI ANTHONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3499
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1212/2025

The Court granted leave because the Applicant established a reasonably arguable case that the Board irrationally failed to accept evidence of personal targeting and failed to make adequate inquiry into relevant COI and state protection; given the seriousness of non‑refoulement issues an enhanced scrutiny was required and the Board's reasons gave rise to arguable errors of law or irrationality justifying judicial review.