Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 2 hkboro (right to life)

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4202
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1246/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Applicant provided insufficient evidence of risk under Article 2 HKBORO; the Director's decision was superseded by appeal to the Board and thus not independently reviewable; the Board's decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
12 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3489
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1124/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Director's Decision was superseded and not reviewable after appeal to the Board; the Board applied the law correctly, made justified adverse credibility findings and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard, so the challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
7 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL573/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal or procedural error by the Adjudicator; the Adjudicator's factual findings were open to him, the applicant produced no evidentiary support on key issues and there was no realistic prospect of success.
15 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL602/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted an appropriate rehearing, provided an interpreter, applied the correct legal tests, and his findings were open on the evidence so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
2 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1427
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1065/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific and reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, made credibility findings open to him and adhered to standards of fairness, and there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
26 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1607/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness; the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably reached adverse credibility findings and applied the correct legal tests under the Unified Screening Mechanism, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
23 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1606/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no reasonably arguable basis: the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, considered the evidence and COI, gave detailed and adequate reasons for adverse credibility findings, committed no error of law or procedure and the claim had no realistic prospect of success.
5 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1083
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1034/2017

The applicant failed to identify any specific and reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator properly applied the law, conducted a fair rehearing, and the applicant's admissions and credibility findings defeated any real prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
30 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 18
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL170/2018

No reasonably arguable legal or procedural error was established; the Adjudicator afforded a fair hearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached a decision open on the facts; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
24 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL41/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of illegality, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator lawfully applied the relevant legal tests, made open credibility findings after considering evidence and COI, and the Director's decision was not reviewable following an appeal reheard by the TCAB.