Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Convention against torture (cat)

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1407/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board conducted fresh hearings, provided adequate reasons satisfying the enhanced Wednesbury test, and the Applicant did not particularise the alleged defects or show realistic prospects of success.
21 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5578
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL137/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularise or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board provided adequate reasons, the applicant refused to answer questions at the Board hearing, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
9 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1802
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL489/2020

Leave refused because the applicant failed to particularize or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board had conducted an oral hearing, provided adequate reasons, properly assessed evidence and COI, and its decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard making the judicial review challenge not reasonably arguable.
2 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 172
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL737/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any properly arguable grounds; the Director's and Board's findings that there were no substantial grounds for a real risk of death, torture or persecution, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were lawful, rational and not procedurally unfair and thus satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test; consequently the proposed judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success.
3 Mar 2023

ALI KHAN SAJID alias SAJID ALI KHAN alias RASHID ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 675
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1463/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's grounds lacked sufficient particularity and were not reasonably arguable; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings fell squarely within its fact‑finding province, involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test; although extension of time was granted, the proposed JR had no realistic prospect of success.
10 Sept 2019

RE ARAFIN MOHAMMED AZADUL

Citation

[2019] HKCA 958
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse factual and credibility findings were open to it and judicial review is not an avenue to rehear the merits.
26 Jul 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL137/2018

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application: the applicant's delay of approximately 3.5 years was substantial and unexplained, the proposed grounds were broad and lacked particulars such that there was no prospect of practical relief, and subsequent events (withdrawal of earlier claim, repatriation and later failure to assert police risk) rendered any challenge academic; therefore no good reason to extend time and no practical justice in granting leave.
14 Jun 2019

RE MOHAMMED FAHEEM

Citation

[2019] HKCA 653
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV356/2018

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and the intended appeal was not reasonably arguable; the alleged clerical error did not affect the outcome and did not justify leave.
18 Oct 2018

RE MATLOOB HASSAM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 708
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV297/2018

The court held that absence of legal representation and lack of translation were not automatically fatal where the applicant was given opportunity to provide additional information, did not do so, and where primary materials were prepared with legal assistance; there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions and no prospect of success on judicial review, so leave was properly refused.
29 Mar 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 696
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL245/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board did not err in law or procedurally in finding the applicant had not shown a real and foreseeable personal risk of torture or persecution; objective country information and findings supported that state protection and internal relocation were realistic alternatives and that the ill-treatment did not meet the statutory threshold for torture, so there was no arguable prospect of success on judicial review.