Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 2 hkboro

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4021
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1205/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success; the Board's Decision was comprehensive, addressed Article 2 HKBORO, and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; the Applicant declined to provide or identify additional evidence and did not demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Director's earlier decision was not reviewable after appeal to the Board.
28 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3849
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1157/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board applied the correct legal principles, afforded fair procedure and its factual conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Director's earlier decision was not reviewable after appeal to the Board.
12 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3490
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1127/2020

Leave was refused because the Director's decision was superseded by the Board's decision and thus not independently reviewable; the applicant failed to provide any arguable grounds in the Form; the Board had given an opportunity to present further facts; allegations of non-receipt of notice, lack of translation and lack of legal representation did not establish procedural unfairness or error of law; the Board's assessment of evidence, risk and internal relocation was within its primary remit and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard, so there were no realistic prospects of success for judicial…
29 Aug 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL426/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, applied the law correctly, afforded a fair hearing, and reached conclusions open on the evidence, so there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify leave.
11 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1043
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL561/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; careful review of the papers disclosed no error of law or procedure and the Adjudicator's decision was open on the facts and eminently reasonable.
3 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL996/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Adjudicator conducted a lawful and fair rehearing, applied the correct legal principles and made findings open to her on the facts, and the Director's decision is not reviewable after an appeal to the TCAB.
26 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1600/2018

Leave was granted because there was an arguable basis for judicial review: absence of evidence that the Decision was served on the applicant (despite deemed service via Duty Lawyer Service) and absence of clear indication that the Adjudicator considered the substantive material on the BOR2 claim created a realistic prospect of success on grounds of procedural unfairness or failure to consider relevant material.
2 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL765/2017

The court refused leave because there was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review: the Adjudicator applied the correct law, afforded procedural fairness, engaged the applicant, and made fact-based findings open to him; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
30 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL307/2018

The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness: the Adjudicator conducted a rehearing, provided an interpreter, allowed the applicant to answer questions, applied the correct legal principles and reached a decision open on the facts; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
9 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL207/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing, applied the law correctly and made findings open on the evidence, and the Director's decision is not reviewable once the TCAB has reheard the appeal.