Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Convention against torture (article 3)

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3574
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL291/2021

Leave was refused because the application was filed more than 2.5 years late without any application for extension and, on merits, the Board's findings that the applicant did not face a real risk of harm, that internal relocation and state protection were available, and that the Board acted lawfully and fairly were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
6 Dec 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL723/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to put forward any properly pleaded or reasonably arguable ground demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings and its conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the application was therefore not reasonably arguable.
11 Jan 2022

HUSSAIN IFTIKHAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1621/2021

The Director lawfully applied s37ZO, correctly found no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process.
24 Dec 2021

THAPA KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1921
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV415/2021

The Judge correctly applied supervisory standards, found no error of law or procedural unfairness: the applicant had access to interpretation, had earlier duty lawyer assistance, had opportunity to make submissions to the Board, and the Board's findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore refusal of leave was properly made and is affirmed.
13 Dec 2021

NOVI AZIZAH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1910
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV289/2021

The judge correctly applied the established four-factor test for extension of time and lawfully refused an extension and leave as to A1 because the delay was substantial, there were no good reasons for delay and the intended judicial review lacked merit given the Board's credibility findings and state protection/internal relocation conclusions; however, the court identified that the minors' claims (A2-A4) raised potentially distinct statelessness issues not properly explored and therefore adjourned those appeals for further argument within three months to allow focused consideration of minor-…
15 Nov 2021

RE MANNAN MIAH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1703
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV282/2021

The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to establish any arguable public law error by the Board; the Board had applied the law, conducted a fair hearing (with interpreter) and was entitled to take into account the applicant's conduct and the doubtful credibility of late documents; non‑compliance with appellate directions justified disposal on paper. Accordingly the appeal against refusal of leave was dismissed.
28 Oct 2020

JAITEH MOMODOU L. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2758
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL960/2017

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to give an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to attend the hearing despite being personally contacted, and the underlying application for judicial review had no real prospect of success; on balance it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
19 Jun 2020

AMRIT SINGH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1522
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL838/2017

The summons for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicants offered no acceptable explanation for a 506-day delay, had no arguable grounds or reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal, and, applying the statutory factors (length of delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice), it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.
17 Sept 2019

RE MARSHALL BILL O

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1031
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV246/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; credibility, risk assessment and internal relocation findings are within the Board's primary remit and were not demonstrated to be vitiated by public law error.
31 Jul 2019

HUSSAIN ZUBAIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1926
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL40/2018

Extension of time to appeal was refused because, although delay was minimal (one day), the applicant failed to show any arguable appeal or grounds of review and the underlying non-refoulement claim lacked merit; additionally the applicant had a duty to provide an address for service and the file showed proper service, so granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.