Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bor3 risk

Legal area

Court

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.
13 May 2022

RE PURISIMA AIDA P

Citation

[2022] HKCA 637
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/2022

The Court held there was no error of law or procedural irregularity in the TCAB's decision, the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were justified on the evidence, the non-refoulement claims (BOR3 and persecution) were unsubstantiated and state protection was available; therefore the delay in seeking leave was unexplained and the judge correctly refused extension of time and refused leave to apply for judicial review.
29 Dec 2020

RE MORILLO ELEJA LOQUINARIO

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1069
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV257/2020

The Board provided detailed, adequate reasons rejecting the applicant's BOR3 and torture/CIDTP claims; there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention and the judge correctly refused leave to apply for judicial review, so the appeal was dismissed.
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.
31 Oct 2018

RE MOHAMMED SAYEED

Citation

[2018] HKCA 773
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2018

The deputy judge correctly refused leave because the applicant could not show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board: the applicant had assistance when required, the Director gave reasons on BOR2, the Board's adverse credibility and state-protection/internal-relocation findings were supported, and late-raised grounds were out of time; therefore there was no prospect of success and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Jul 2018

RE DIVI DIAH NINGRUM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 438
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Board made decisions within the range of reasonable responses: the alleged ill‑treatment was of low intensity and frequency, the dispute was a private financial matter with available state protection and internal relocation, credibility findings were open to the adjudicators, procedural complaints lacked specific prejudice and the proposed new grounds were not raised earlier, so there was no reasonably arguable basis and no prospect of success.
29 May 2018

RE ALI ARSHAD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 304
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: the duty lawyer scheme and interpretation arrangements were adequate on the facts, no particulars were given of evidence withheld by lack of counsel, the Further Decision must be read with the original Director Decision and was overtaken by the Board Decision, and disposal on paper was justified by non‑compliance with procedural directions; therefore no realistic prospect of success existed.
5 Feb 2018

KHAN KHALIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 279
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL222/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because none of the grounds were arguable: the adjudicator lawfully applied the correct legal principles, made credibility findings supported by the record, there was no evidence of state involvement or acquiescence, alternative remedies were available and used, and the applicant failed to attend the oral rehearing.