Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 3 hkbor (prohibition of torture/cidtp)

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1864
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1326/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board made explicit factual findings that the applicant produced no supporting evidence and advanced only speculative claims; the applicant failed to demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus had no realistic prospect of success.
15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1573/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully found state protection in Indonesia and no foreseeable, real, personal and present risk of torture or other ill-treatment; those findings fell within the Board's fact-finding remit and did not disclose legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1090
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1316/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced no arguable legal grounds, the Board's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
21 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1233/2025

Leave refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success or any arguable legal error; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were supported by the record, and the applicant's request to re‑speak to the adjudicator was irrelevant to the leave inquiry.
10 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5605
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1168/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that documents were fabricated were within its fact-finding remit and did not disclose a realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
3 Nov 2025

NAVEED HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1086/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness and could not show a realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was viable; the court will not overturn primary fact‑finding absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
16 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3968
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL518/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that there was no real risk of harm, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without evidential support.
2 Jul 2025

BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2533
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL118/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; his procedural complaints were unsubstantiated and amounted to bare assertions rather than legal errors or procedural unfairness, and the Board's factual findings that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection and internal relocation were viable were within its fact-finding province and rational.
11 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 909
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1532/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success because the Board's findings—that past ill-treatment was low intensity, that effective state protection was available in Indonesia, and that internal relocation was viable—were open to it on the evidence and involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
5 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1305/2019

Leave was refused because the Board\u2019s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were viable fell within its fact-finding remit and were not shown to involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.