Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 2 hkbor (bor 2)

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2025

ALOM S M JAHAHGIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1745/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars; the Director and the Board conducted proper lawful assessments of credibility, state protection and internal relocation which were not shown to involve legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; there was no prospect of success and the applicant had subsequently indicated he no longer opposed return, therefore leave was dismissed.
3 Jun 2021

AKBAR MD FAISHAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1590
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL376/2018

The second application for leave was struck out and dismissed because it sought to re-litigate the same Board decision after a prior leave refusal and a refused out-of-time appeal, constituting abuse of process/res judicata, and because no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was shown—the Director and Board lawfully and reasonably rejected the claimant's non-refoulement claims based on credibility findings, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation supported by COI.
15 Jun 2020

SULIYATI-JEMINGAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL813/2018

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant failed to provide good reason for a substantial delay (over six months and effectively about nine months including the statutory period), and the proposed grounds were broad, vague and not reasonably arguable; no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated in the Director's or the Board's decisions, including their assessment that internal relocation in Indonesia was available.
8 Jun 2020

BARROGA ESCOLASTICA TEJERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1540/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions. The primary decision-makers lawfully assessed the evidence, concluded the risk was localized and low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and exercised discretion appropriately regarding representation, translation and oral hearing; judicial review is not a forum to retry these factual evaluations.
22 Nov 2019

ALI KARAMAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2422
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1031/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant’s asserted grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director and the Board applied correct legal principles, made fact‑based assessments that the risk was localized and of low intensity, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness (including no substantive prejudice from representation or translation issues) to justify judicial review.

Hong Kong Case Law

ALOM S M JAHAHGIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

AKBAR MD FAISHAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SULIYATI-JEMINGAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

BARROGA ESCOLASTICA TEJERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI KARAMAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]