PACLIPAN NEIL OLIVER ONES V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2025] HKCFI 403 Court of First Instance 22 January 2025 • HCAL894/2023 • 14 min read
11 cases cited (0 HK, 11 foreign) Cited by 3 cases

Judges (1)

Parties (5)

Case Significance

Paclipan Neil Oliver Ones v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 403 was decided by the Court of First Instance on 22 January 2025. The applicant, a Filipino national, sought leave to apply for judicial review of a Torture Claims Appeal Board decision that had rejected his non-refoulement claim, made on the basis of a stated fear of a drug syndicate he had formerly worked for. The court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's or the Director's assessment, and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review; leave was refused. The matter continued as Paclipan Neil Oliver Ones v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCA 811, and was cited in later non-refoulement matters including Ali Imtiaz v. Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 5319 and Bansal Manoj v. Director of Immigration and Another [2026] HKCFI 185.

What was the basis of the non-refoulement claim in Paclipan Neil Oliver Ones v. Torture Claims Appeal Board ([2025] HKCFI 403)?

The applicant, a Filipino national, based his non-refoulement claim on a stated fear of a drug syndicate he had formerly worked for. The Court of First Instance in [2025] HKCFI 403 found no error of law or procedural unfairness and refused leave to apply for judicial review.

Did the refusal of leave in this case go to appeal ([2025] HKCFI 403)?

Yes. After leave to apply for judicial review was refused in [2025] HKCFI 403, the matter proceeded as Paclipan Neil Oliver Ones v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCA 811 before the Court of Appeal.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (11)

UK (1)
[1954] 1 WLR 1489
HK (10)
(2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 [2007] 3 HKLRD 213 [2018] HKCA 14 [2018] HKCA 152 [2018] HKCA 160 [2018] HKCA 162 [2018] HKCA 163 [2018] HKCA 246 [2018] HKCA 524 [2018] HKCFI 409

Cited By (3)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 3 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Related cases

Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2025] HKCFI 403)