Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights (articles 2 and 3)

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1994
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL259/2021

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual assessment were properly reached and not susceptible to judicial review; Applicant's concession that he no longer identifies as homosexual and evidence of possible internal relocation removed any real foreseeable risk, so there was no prospect of success.
13 Mar 2026

WARNAKULASOORIYA JUDE GAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1315/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any reasonably arguable public law ground (procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality) that would vitiate the TCAB decision; the TCAB's factual assessments on credibility, state protection and internal relocation fall within its primary fact‑finding role and there was no realistic prospect that a judicial review would succeed even if BOR2 were treated more broadly.
6 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 718
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1462/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground; on rigorous anxious scrutiny the TCAB/NRCPO's findings on risk, state protection and lack of Refugee Convention nexus were not shown to be vitiated by procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality, and any narrow reading of BOR2 did not establish a realistic prospect of a different outcome.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1406/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review or to disclose material facts; the TCAB/NRCPO's assessment of credibility and risk fell within its fact‑finding discretion and was not shown to involve procedural unfairness, error of law or Wednesbury irrationality sufficient to justify review.
12 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 75
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1009/2020

The 1st applicant's leave was dismissed because she failed to identify arguable grounds and the Board's decision as to her was not shown to be legally flawed; the 2nd applicant's leave was granted because the Board failed to consider the child's claim separately and in a manner consistent with authorities on unrepresented minors, creating a reasonably arguable case of procedural unfairness requiring further review and representation, and the court directed procedural steps including amendment of Form 86 and filing of an originating summons within 14 days.
24 Dec 2025

HARYUNI AHMAD CHOIRI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1352/2020

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review with a realistic prospect of success; the NRCPO's credibility findings and assessments on risk of harm and internal relocation fell within the primary province of the decision-maker and disclosed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality under the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
11 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5637
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1461/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground in the Form 86 or affirmation; on anxious scrutiny the TCAB/NRCPO's findings on credibility, state protection and risk were not vitiated by procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality, and there was no realistic prospect of success.
26 Nov 2025

DOLOR EMELIE ROSE ATIENZA alias ATIENZA EMELIE ROSE alias DOLOR EMELIE ROSE alias DOLOR EMELIE ROSE A v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL33/2023

No reasonably arguable basis for judicial review was identified: the Director and the Board applied the correct legal tests, made fact-based credibility findings, reasonably concluded any risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available, and no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was established; accordingly leave is refused.
11 Nov 2025

NAWAZ MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1341/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Form 86 failed to identify any arguable grounds and, on anxious scrutiny, the NRCPO decision contained adequate reasons and lawful assessments of credibility and risk such that no reasonably arguable public law errors were shown.
31 Oct 2025

ROBLES MARIA CIRILA ATIENZA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 907
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV206/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or provide reasonably arguable grounds showing the judge erred in upholding the Board's decision rejecting her non-refoulement/torture claim; there was no basis to disturb the judge's refusal of leave.