Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 2 right to life

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

RENGARAJ PERIYASAMY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2674
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL487/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were properly supported and the risk alleged was localized and amenable to internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2218
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1403/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds consisted of general assertions unsupported by evidence and he failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and reliance on country‑of‑origin material were within its fact‑finding remit and were not shown to involve error of law or procedural unfairness.
28 Apr 2026

MUNNI LAKY AKTER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL145/2024

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to present reasonably arguable grounds with particulars; the Board and Director made credible findings of low risk, accepted availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness meriting judicial intervention; the Applicant also confirmed it was safe to return.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1692
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL309/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise any arguable ground of public law error, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings on credibility, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were matters of fact and not shown to be irrational or vitiated by legal error.
13 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 981
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1346/2025

The applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking evidence or particulars; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, injuries did not meet the minimal severity for torture, and state protection and internal relocation were available; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 746
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1194/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings (attackers were private actors, no established risk across Nepal, injuries not of required severity, state protection available, internal relocation viable) were within its fact-finding province; the grounds advanced were bare assertions lacking particulars or evidence; and there was no demonstrated legal error or procedural unfairness such as an entitlement to continuous interpretation service.
22 Dec 2025

AHMAD ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6139
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL66/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the court was not satisfied that the Director of Immigration or the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law, acted irrationally or breached procedural fairness; the applicant was absent at the hearing and did not add arguments or evidence; delay in appealing the first decision was inadequately explained; the claims were unsubstantiated on the record and internal relocation was reasonably possible, therefore no arguable grounds for judicial review were established.
12 Dec 2025

SHAH SAJJAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL36/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish arguable grounds: his assertions lacked objective support, he did not demonstrate legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness on the part of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, and threats by non-state actors were not shown to engage non-refoulement in the absence of supporting evidence.
19 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1120/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground showing a realistic prospect of success; the Board's assessment of credibility, state protection and internal relocation fell within its fact-finding province and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
30 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4864
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1770/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings fell squarely within its fact-finding province and were not shown to be tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.