Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 2 and article 3 hkbor

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1670
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1756/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds in Form 86 or at the hearing and failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse findings on credibility and risk are factual findings not open to judicial interference on the material before the court.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1091
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1307/2025

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the application was filed materially late (beyond the three-month limit), the applicant advanced no substantive or specific grounds to undermine the Board's findings, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's rational fact findings and absence of legal error or procedural unfairness.
16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 748
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1202/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence; the Board's adverse credibility findings were based on cross-examination and within its fact-finding remit; there was no procedural unfairness established and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
7 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 44
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1190/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable or specific grounds; she did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success and the Board's Decision involved findings of fact (no factual basis for claimed risks, availability of state protection, viable internal relocation) which the court will not displace absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
12 Sept 2025

MALLAWA ARACHCHIGE AMITHA PRIYANGANIE MALLAWA ARACHCHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL64/2022

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the two‑day delay was unexplained and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any legal or procedural error in the Board's findings (credibility, hearsay, insufficient severity and viable internal relocation), and supervisory review will not override the Board's fact‑finding.
12 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 937
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1455/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its factual province and open on the evidence; the Director's Decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued.
16 Feb 2024

PHAM NGOC MINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 427
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1087/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked particulars demonstrating any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Director or the Board; both decision-makers' conclusions that the risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available withstand rigorous anxious scrutiny; there was no prospect of success and the applicant subsequently affirmed it was safe to return.
8 Aug 2023

DO HAI NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1984
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL982/2019

The Court refused leave because it found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision: the Board's factual findings were supported by evidence and COI, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and the applicant lacked a realistic prospect of success.
30 Jun 2023

ASSOHOUETO SENAMI MATHIEU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground for judicial review; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the Director's assessment of low risk, availability of internal relocation and state protection were supported by evidence and free of legal error or procedural unfairness, so there was no prospect of success to justify leave.
14 Oct 2022

NGUYEN TUAN VINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3176
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL708/2022

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was almost one year out of time without any satisfactory explanation for delay and his intended challenge lacked arguable merits—no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s or Board’s decisions.