Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 3 hong kong bill of rights

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5434
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1660/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the TCAB had considered the applicant's case and applied the correct legal principles, there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its decision, the allegations were insufficient to establish torture, persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment, and internal relocation was available; the applicant therefore had no reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.
5 Sept 2025

HUSSAIN AMJAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4035
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL682/2020

The leave application is dismissed because the NRCPO's BOR2 assessment did not disclose any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the COI relied on recognised sources and COI assessment is a factual matter for the tribunal; the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from lack of legal assistance and a reasonable internal relocation alternative was found, rendering the judicial review not reasonably arguable.
25 Oct 2021

RE SATHAIAH SUBBAIAH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1570
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2021

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable grounds to show the Deputy Judge erred in law or committed procedural unfairness; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and lack of specific targeting were open to it and the Court will not substitute its view absent legal error.
22 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1769
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL714/2018

The court held the intended judicial review was reasonably arguable and granted leave (and extended time if necessary) because the Board erred by failing to consider the merits of the applicant’s appeals as a relevant matter under s 37ZT(2)(b) and by failing to apply the high standards of fairness required in non‑refoulement proceedings, including making reasonable enquiries or requesting further evidence before refusing late filings.
9 Apr 2021

EKEOMA LUCKY MIRACLE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 939
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1908/2018

Extension of time and leave were granted because, notwithstanding the substantial delay, it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to take into account the merits of the Applicant's appeal as a relevant matter of fact under s37ZT(2)(b), and case law requires the merits to be considered when determining whether it would be unjust to refuse late filing.
12 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1919
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL617/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board correctly exercised s.37ZT to refuse late filing in absence of reasons or evidence; the risk was found localized with available state protection and feasible internal relocation, so no prospect of success on BOR2/BOR3/torture/persecution grounds.
6 May 2020

SHIVJIT SINGH v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL300/2018

The application for leave was dismissed and time to apply was not extended because the applicant's delay (9–20 months) was substantial with no satisfactory explanation, the intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable ground since the Board's adverse credibility finding and conclusions about low localized risk and availability of internal relocation were not shown to involve legal error or procedural unfairness, and therefore there was no prospect of success.
19 Dec 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL487/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
4 Dec 2019

DUMAGSA MARCELO CALDERON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1084/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's assessment that the risk was localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that procedural fairness was observed was reasonable and within the decision-makers' remit.
8 Oct 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL513/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding was open on the evidence, the Director's assessment that risk was localized and internal relocation was available was lawful, and the application amounted to an improper attempt to relitigate factual matters.