Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 3 hkbor (prohibition of cidtp)

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

AKHTAR MUSAMMAT SAJNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1999
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL680/2023

The applicants' claims were bare allegations unsupported by evidence, the Board conducted a proper hearing and made reasoned fact-based findings that there was no realistic risk to the mother or child and state protection and child welfare/education were available; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review and leave is refused.
1 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1839
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1392/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid specific ground, did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion on internal relocation fell squarely within the Board's fact-finding remit with no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality shown.
21 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 255
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1154/2020

Extension of time was refused because the delay (over 1 year and 2 months) was excessive, the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation, and no basis for judicial intervention (error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality) was shown; accordingly the leave application was dismissed.
6 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5169
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1077/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be irrational, legally erroneous or procedurally unfair, and the supervisory court must defer to the Board's fact‑finding.
30 May 2024

HATULAN AILYN DEL ROSARIO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL530/2023

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Boards lawfully made adverse credibility findings, concluded there was no real or imminent risk of harm to either applicant, found state protection and internal relocation viable, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions.
7 Mar 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1434/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were within its fact‑finding province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
24 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL972/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
27 Jul 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1879
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL988/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and reliance on COI were lawful, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown such as to render the decision Wednesbury unreasonable.
13 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 48
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1084/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's Decision fell within its fact-finding province, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its credibility and risk assessments, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
2 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL236/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's Decision involved no error of law or procedural unfairness, the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on the intended judicial review.