Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bor 2 (right to life)

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL375/2021

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's explanation for a substantial delay was found incredible and unexplained; alternatively, on the merits the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success because the Board lawfully and rationally applied the law, there was no procedural unfairness, no new admissible evidence, and the Decision satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
17 Sept 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2447
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1610/2020

Leave was refused because the Board's decision was within its fact-finding province, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its assessment, the Applicant produced no new credible evidence to establish a BOR 2 risk, and the Decision met the required standard (not Wednesbury unreasonable); therefore the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
10 Oct 2023

NGUYEN THI HOA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1023/2019

The Board correctly applied the law: on the uncontested factual findings in the Director's unappealed Notice the applicants' case concerned a private dispute without state involvement or acquiescence, there was no real risk of state-inflicted deprivation of life, state protection was available, the applicants submitted no fresh evidence when invited, and the Board's decision was not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
3 Aug 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1035/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board applied the correct legal tests to the BOR 2 claim, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law that caused prejudice, the Board's factual findings are binding and not irrational, and the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable or likely to succeed under the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
27 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL441/2019

Leave refused because the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision: the Board lawfully relied on COI, made defensible findings of fact (incidents isolated, injuries limited, internal relocation viable) and its decision satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test; the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.
17 Aug 2021

RE QAISAR BASHIR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1107
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV25/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to articulate any arguable public law ground, failed to translate or link voluminous materials to any ground, and the Director/Board's assessments that there was no real BOR 2 risk and that state protection/internal relocation were available were rational, lawful and free of procedural unfairness; there was no prospect of success.
23 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1331
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1575/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator's credibility and factual findings were open to him and his decisions on merits and on refusal to permit late filing were lawful and reasonable, yielding no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
25 Oct 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2634
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1729/2018

The court refused extension of time and dismissed the application for leave because the application against the Board was out of time with no application for extension or good reason, the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success as the Board had rejected the applicant's evidence and state protection was found available, and the Director's decisions were not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board was pursued.
19 Oct 2018

SUNARSIH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2299
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL306/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions: the risks alleged were localised, COI supported reasonable internal relocation, there was no evidential basis that BOR2/BOR3 or torture risks would be violated, and absence of translation or continued legal representation did not render the process unfair; therefore no real prospect of success was shown.
12 Jul 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL684/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable breach of BOR2 or procedural unfairness: he produced no new evidence, the adjudicator properly exercised case management in deciding the appeal on paper, there was no error of law, and the decisions met the enhanced Wednesbury standard so there was no realistic prospect of success.