Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bor article 3

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1393/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Form 86 contained no arguable grounds, the applicant failed to discharge disclosure and contact obligations, and on rigorous anxious scrutiny the NRCPO/TCAB decisions showed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to justify review; the applicant lacked a reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.
24 Jul 2025

ASHWANI KUMAR v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3147
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1056/2020

The court held that the NRCPO lawfully and properly exercised its discretion under the Petition Guide and section 37ZT to refuse late filing because there were no special circumstances, the applicant provided no new facts to alter the BOR2 assessment, and the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
24 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1706
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL926/2021

Leave was refused because the Board's decision involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board properly applied legal principles, accepted the applicant's personal account but reasonably concluded the risk did not meet thresholds for torture, BOR 2 or persecution and internal relocation and state protection were viable, and the proposed JR was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
21 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1147
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1862/2024

Leave refused because the Board conducted a de novo hearing, applied correct legal principles, made fact findings within its exclusive province, afforded high standards of fairness, and the Applicant failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
12 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 979
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2552/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed 70 days late without a satisfactory explanation; the Board’s Decision was subject to rigorous anxious scrutiny and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality; factual findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within the Board’s province and the Applicant failed to show reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success; judicial review of the Director’s decision was inappropriate after a de novo Board rehearing and no exceptional circumstances w…
11 Aug 2022

SHERPUNJA THAPA KUL PRASAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2434
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL166/2019

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay of approximately 1.5 years was inordinate, unexplained and unjustified; the proposed grounds lacked arguability because they concerned BOR 2 which did not engage the earlier Board decision and the complaints of lack of legal representation and translation were unsupported and not material; the Board lawfully exercised its discretion under s37ZT(2) to refuse late filing and there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and time was no…
24 Jun 2021

MD NAZIR AHMED SARKAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 918
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV159/2019

The NRCPO Decision was quashed because the adjudicator unlawfully re‑examined a torture claim already finally determined by the Board and, crucially, failed to take relevant matters (including events and the Board's reasoned findings) into account in assessing BOR3 and persecution risk and in evaluating internal relocation; this failure amounted to a public law error warranting quashing and a rehearing before a different adjudicator.
28 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1341/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the Applicant advanced reasonably arguable grounds that the Board misapplied statutory criteria for late filing by failing adequately to consider the Applicant's asserted change of address and service, failed to take account of the merits of the underlying appeal, gave insufficient reasons and may have unlawfully fettered its discretion; these errors are reasonably arguable and justify granting leave to seek full judicial review.
15 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1548
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1888/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success: the Board's factual findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claimed harm was speculative and did not meet the minimum severity were within the Board's evaluative province and not tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
15 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1550
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1878/2018

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success because he did not identify any error of law or unfairness by the Board; the Board reasonably found the risk speculative and private, and that state protection and internal relocation were available; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave for judicial review.