Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 3 hkbor prohibition of torture

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2026

YAHYA MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2427
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1682/2025

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were vague and lacked necessary particulars; neither the Director nor the Board committed identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness in finding no real and foreseeable risk given low intensity of past ill‑treatment, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; judicial review is not a vehicle to re‑hear the merits absent such errors.
5 Mar 2024

SUKHVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 658
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL397/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the complaints about lack of representation and language assistance were unsubstantiated and the risk was found to be localized with reasonable internal relocation and state protection available, so no prospect of success existed.
29 Mar 2022

MUHAMMAD NAZEER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 909
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL56/2016

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the assessments that the risk was localized and that internal relocation was available were supported by evidence and not susceptible to judicial intervention on review.
1 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL780/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the absence of additional facts meant no unfairness arose from declining an oral BOR 2 hearing, so judicial review was not appropriate.
3 Jan 2019

SAIF-UR-REHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL255/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence and the primary decision-makers properly applied relevant legal standards including consideration of state protection and internal relocation, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Hong Kong Case Law

YAHYA MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SUKHVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MUHAMMAD NAZEER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

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

SAIF-UR-REHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]