Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 2 and 3 hkbor

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2026

VELASCO GRACE EWAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1347/2022

The Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; the Board's adverse credibility findings were lawful, the assessed risk was low and internal relocation and state protection were realistically available in the Philippines, therefore there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 492
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2581/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated were open to it given the applicant's failure to seek protection in India and absence of cogent evidence, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
23 Jan 2026

AMINDAVAA SUGARMAA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 470
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2141/2025

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; the Board's credibility findings and assessment that any risk was localized and that internal relocation was available were for primary decision-makers and were not amenable to judicial intervention; judicial review is not a rehearing and there was no prospect of success.
11 Nov 2025

RASEL S M OBAIDUL HOQUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5325
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2064/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's decision to accept the applicant's evidence in part but to find low risk, lack of documentary proof, absence of imminence, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation was within its fact-finding province and not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
5 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL603/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant’s grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars; the Board and Director made reasoned findings of low, localized risk, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; material credibility concerns were identified; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated such that judicial review should intervene.
7 Jan 2025

ABBAS QASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1161/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's decision was supported by the evidence, found the risk low and localized, accepted availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the Applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no particulars, so there was no prospect of success.
23 Jul 2024

KHAN ASHIQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL604/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant relied on the same facts already rejected by the Board and failed to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; because the intended proceedings were likely an abuse of process the Court properly made a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent repetitive litigation.
30 May 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1338
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL285/2024

The application for extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant could not show a realistic prospect of success on judicial review and had conceded she did not consider the Board wrong; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention.
23 Apr 2024

TABINGAN JULIUS KIDAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1506/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies conducted proper credibility assessments and found the risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
19 Mar 2024

DEWI ANITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1107/2022

The leave application was refused because the applicant’s asserted grounds were broad, vague and lacked necessary particulars; the Board and Director applied the correct legal tests, made adverse credibility findings supported by the evidence, and reasonably concluded the risk was low with available state protection and viable internal relocation; no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and there was therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.