Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statelessness

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

MTENGA ADLEY, suing by her mother and next friend, OGAL BELINDA ADHIAMBO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL983/2025

The court refused leave because the Board correctly applied the law and key principles, made lawful and rational findings on risk and credibility based on COI and evidence, there was no procedural unfairness or legal error, and the Form 86 failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success.
1 Apr 2026

WARNAKULASURIYA MARIYA INDIKA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL948/2020

The court dismissed the 1st applicant's leave application for lack of a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects, but extended time and granted leave to the 2nd applicant because the 2nd applicant raised reasonably arguable legal questions (notably the Board's jurisdiction regarding a stateless person and the prospect of removal), and directed the 2nd applicant to issue an originating summons by 15 April 2026.
1 Apr 2026

AKTHER SALMAN AHAD (a minor) by AKTHER PARVIN, his next friend v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1262/2025

Leave dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's factual findings, COI assessment and conclusion on internal relocation were within its remit and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
25 Mar 2026

SIKDAR SABRINA (a minor) by BEGUM AKASHI, her next friend v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1800
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL274/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Court, after anxious scrutiny, found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claims and the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
11 Feb 2026

GALLEGO VALDES MARIA MELEK (a minor) by her mother and next friend ANZOLA SANCHEZ YESICA DANIELA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2551/2024

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or failure to apply high standards of fairness in the Board's decision; the Board properly assessed credibility, considered relevant COI, and reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, such that there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
7 Jan 2026

JAIBIR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL412/2020

Leave was granted because the Board committed an error of law by failing to give separate consideration to the minor's claim and by insufficiently addressing the minor's statelessness and related risks; those errors rendered the decision susceptible to judicial review rather than an immediate merits re‑hearing.
23 Dec 2025

CALUZA MARIA LOURDES GALANG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1147
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP182/2024

The application for extension of time is dismissed: the 1st Applicant identified no arguable grounds; the 2nd Applicant’s delay was inexcusable and her proposed grounds (statelessness and procedural unfairness due to lack of counsel) are speculative or not reasonably arguable and do not demonstrate a real prospect of success, so extension is refused.
10 Oct 2025

DOTE PURISIMA TAMAYO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 912
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2021

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicants failed to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; their allegations were bare and unsupported by evidence; and some grounds were new and had not been raised below, so there was no basis to grant leave under either limb of s22(1)(b).
12 Sept 2025

RE COMPAY IRENE NAVARRO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 822
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV419/2024

Applicants failed to identify any arguable grounds to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board had properly and separately considered the minors' claims with legally assisted representation and relevant COI, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; therefore leave was correctly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
19 Jan 2024

SULEKHAH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 50
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP95/2021

Leave to appeal and the ancillary applications were refused because the Notice of Motion did not identify any question of great general or public importance, the proposed grounds were new or bare and lacked particulars, the proposed questions were not novel or sufficiently important in light of existing authorities, and the proposed amendments and evidence raised matters not considered below and had no reasonable prospect of success.