Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 2 bor

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5413
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1664/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the 2nd TCAB Decision; the TCAB applied the correct legal principles and its adverse credibility and availability-of-protection findings were not susceptible to judicial review, so no reasonably arguable case was shown.
9 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL710/2020

The Board correctly applied the statutory test in s37ZT; the Applicant failed to establish special circumstances or explain the delays or challenge the DI's factual assessments, and the Form 86 was itself filed out of time without justification; accordingly there was no merit in granting extension or leave and the application must be dismissed.
16 Aug 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1233/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director correctly applied the law, their findings that the risk to the applicant was low, that the ill-treatment did not meet the minimum severity for Article 3/torture, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were supported by evidence and were not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable; the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospects of success.
30 Jan 2024

RE SRI PUJIASTUTI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 116
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV469/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the Judge did not commit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in refusing leave; the applicant's grounds were fact-sensitive and within the Board's province, and no viable legal ground was shown to reverse the Judge.
28 Apr 2023

RE HOANG KIM DUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 603
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV334/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or any viable ground showing a real prospect of success; the Judge rightly refused leave given the Board's adverse credibility findings and absence of arguable legal error.
6 Feb 2023

BUDDADASAGE SUDESH JETHENDRA KUMARA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 117
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV520/2021

The Judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to advance any viable ground showing error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; credibility and evidential assessments fall within the Board's province and are not re-opened on an appeal against refusal of leave.
6 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCA 118
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2021

The Judge properly refused leave because the applicants advanced no viable ground demonstrating legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's findings on credibility, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not susceptible to judicial review; the minor's lack of legal representation was a mere irregularity given the fairness of the Board's process and absence of unadvanced child-specific grounds.
30 Jan 2023

TOP BAHADUR CHAND v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 275
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1883/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant was almost nine months out of time without a good reason for the delay and the intended grounds lacked reasonable prospects of success: the Board and Director had considered COI and BOR 3, made factual findings that risk was localized and low, and reasonably relied on available state protection and internal relocation; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified to justify judicial review.
11 May 2022

RE MANUEL TRINIDAD AGUILAN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 650
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV529/2021

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's or judge's decisions; the Court will not re‑assess evidential findings of the Board absent such errors and no viable ground was advanced to reverse the refusal of leave.
14 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 683
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL421/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to present any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, procedural unfairness or irrationality against the Adjudicator; the TCAB rehearing rendered the Director's decision not susceptible to review; the Adjudicator applied the correct law, weighed evidence and afforded procedural fairness, so there was no realistic prospect of success.