Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Convention against torture

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1432/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant raised no valid or specific ground challenging the Board's decision, failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's factual findings on lack of evidence linking police to PML(N), availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within its province and not legally flawed.
8 Apr 2026

AHMAD MUSHTAQ v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1921
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1079/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to articulate any arguable public law error in the Board's 2 July 2021 decision; the Board's factual findings (exaggeration, inconsistencies, reasonable internal relocation) were within permissible evaluative judgment and did not disclose reviewable error.
30 Mar 2026

LYONS MARY JANE TICANO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL569/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the alleged lack of legal representation and language assistance did not render the Board's process unfair: there is no absolute right to free legal representation or interpretation at all stages, the Applicant had representation before the Director, documents were in English and interpreter services were available, and there was no complaint at the Board hearing; accordingly no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown.
30 Mar 2026

GABATO BELLA GUTIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1726
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL614/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision contained adequate reasons, the applicant suffered no procedural unfairness or prejudice from lack of representation or interpretation at every stage, the Board lawfully determined the appeal without a hearing, and the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
25 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1842/2020

There was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review because the Board and the Director conducted lawful, rational assessments supported by evidence and COI, finding low risk and viable internal relocation; no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
4 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1175/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to establish any reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success; the Board applied the correct legal principles, made credible adverse credibility findings, properly considered COI and internal relocation, and its decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard and was not irrational or legally flawed.
12 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3490
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1127/2020

Leave was refused because the Director's decision was superseded by the Board's decision and thus not independently reviewable; the applicant failed to provide any arguable grounds in the Form; the Board had given an opportunity to present further facts; allegations of non-receipt of notice, lack of translation and lack of legal representation did not establish procedural unfairness or error of law; the Board's assessment of evidence, risk and internal relocation was within its primary remit and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard, so there were no realistic prospects of success for judicial…
17 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL104/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success under section 37ZE: the asserted change of circumstances (death of mother) did not increase the prospect of success and no special circumstances were shown; the Board's factual and credibility findings were within its exclusive remit and the Board's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
4 Mar 2025

RE LE DE AN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 185
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP55/2024

Extension of time was refused because the applicant had a serious unexplained delay, failed to provide credible reasons for the delay, and had no viable grounds showing a real prospect of success on appeal; granting extension would be futile.
4 Mar 2025

FAROOQ MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 715
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2146/2024

Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO; the immigration officer lawfully assessed credibility and rejected the additional evidence for stated inconsistencies; state protection and internal relocation were reasonably found available; the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; because the applicant had repeatedly pursued the same claims the court lawfully imposed a five-year restricted proceedings order to prevent further abuse of process.