Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

State protection and internal relocation

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

ASHRAF USAMA, suing by her mother and next friend, YANUAR FARIDAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2773
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2156/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to plead clear grounds or disclose material facts, the Board's factual findings that state protection and internal relocation were available did not involve public law errors, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable or capable of success on judicial review.
6 May 2026

DOLINDO JANET MENDOZA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2634
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL358/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board reasonably found no current risk, that state protection was available, and that internal relocation was viable, and the applicant failed to advance a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2391
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL266/2022

The application for extension of time and for leave was refused because there was an almost 2.5 year unexplained delay, the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable or meritorious, the Board's factual and protection assessments were within its primary purview and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and allowing the application would prejudice proper administration.
30 Apr 2026

NWOKEDI JOHN MIKE IFEANYI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL641/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant advanced no arguable legal grounds, challenged findings of primary fact-finders rather than identifying error of law or procedural unfairness, and the Board's Decision was lawful, procedurally fair and not irrational; therefore the proposed review had no realistic prospect of success.
29 Apr 2026

MAZUMDER MOHAMMAD JOYAL RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1572/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success on judicial review: the Board's decision adhered to public law standards, the applicant's procedural complaint was unfounded, the submitted document did not establish BNP membership, and the Board reasonably found state protection and internal relocation viable.
27 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL259/2022

The Leave Application is dismissed because the Applicant failed to particularise effective public law grounds; the Board provided adequate, comprehensive reasons and legitimately rejected the Applicant's credibility and factual claims, and there is no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would make the application reasonably arguable.
1 Apr 2026

VU XUAN MAT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1523
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL145/2026

The applicant failed to prove a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO such that the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; the Director reasonably relied on the Board's earlier findings that state protection and internal relocation were viable and there was no Wednesbury irrationality or unfairness warranting judicial interference, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
30 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1821
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL630/2022

The leave application is refused because the Board's Decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish entitlement to non-refoulement protection.
27 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1758/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead grounds or make full disclosure, the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its remit and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
25 Mar 2026

BENULOAN SANDRA DULOSA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL398/2021

Having anxiously scrutinised the Board's Decision, the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings or legal application; the applicant failed to identify valid grounds and did not demonstrate a real risk of proscribed harm or lack of state protection, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.