Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bor2 risk

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2213/2020

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any explanation or application for extension and, on the merits, the Board's decision on BOR2 risk contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable.
2 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3742
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL842/2020

The application for leave failed because the applicant did not identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review; the TCAB/NRCPO's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were open to it and not vitiated by procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality even under enhanced scrutiny, therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave was dismissed.
19 Jun 2024

RE LORENZO JONALYN IBUS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 543
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV410/2023

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Judge's refusal of leave because the Board applied the correct legal tests, its factual findings were within its exclusive province and not tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to identify specific viable grounds or particulars showing a realistic prospect of success.
23 Jun 2021

RE MUHAMMAD FIAZ

Citation

[2021] HKCA 881
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP16/2021

The Court refused extension of time because the applicant failed to discharge his duty to notify the court of a change of address such that his reason for delay was unsatisfactory and, critically, his intended appeal had no real prospect of success given no arguable error in the Board's decision; accordingly extension would be futile.
23 Mar 2021

RE CHELLAM GOVINDAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 324
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV282/2018

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the assertions of personal risk did not constitute a valid ground for judicial review or appeal, and there was no basis to admit new, fact-sensitive points or to exercise the 'otherwise' limb to grant leave.
26 Jul 2019

RE HUSSAIN IBRAR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 783
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV555/2018

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable: no oral hearing was sought, the applicant failed to comply with directions to lodge skeleton submissions, and the bare assertion of personal risk on return was insufficient; there was no basis to grant leave under section 22(1)(b).
27 Jun 2019

RE RESTU DWI AMBARWULAN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 706
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV280/2018

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the grounds advanced were vague or had already been addressed and were not reasonably arguable, and no basis existed to grant leave under the otherwise limb.
4 Jun 2019

RE SUNARSIH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 574
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV533/2018

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to satisfy s22(1) criteria: no issue of great general or public importance was shown and no basis under the 'otherwise' limb was made out; the Board held a full re-hearing with interpreter, the applicant did not suffer real prejudice from lack of legal representation, and the facts did not establish a BOR2 risk (risk to life).
18 Mar 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL755/2018

Under rigorous examination the Adjudicator's decision was lawful, procedurally fair and not irrational; the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice from late service of the bundle or lack of representation and therefore had no real prospect of success on judicial review, so leave is refused.
24 Dec 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2773
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL482/2018

The Adjudicator's findings were supported by the evidence and COI, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, the appeal bundle was served in accordance with the applicable practice directions and the applicant was not prejudiced by lack of representation or language difficulties; consequently the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.