Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)

  • 25 Mar 2026

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

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1629
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1445/2025

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was viable were not shown to be vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Persecution (refugee convention article 33)
    • Internal relocation

  • 27 Feb 2026

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

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 906
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1329/2025

    Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any valid grounds of challenge and had no realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the court will not reweigh facts absent such errors.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Persecution (refugee convention article 33)
    • Judicial review leave

  • 28 Jan 2026

    NGUYEN THI HOANG NHUNG acting as guardian of VU BAO VY (a minor) AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 479
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL2601/2025

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence and thus there was no realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that threats were unsubstantiated and that state protection and internal relocation were available were within the Board's fact-finding remit and not susceptible to supervisory intervention.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Persecution (refugee convention article 33)
    • Internal relocation

  • 7 Nov 2023

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

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2687
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1224/2019

    Applicant\u2019s application was refused because the delay of almost four years was unexplained, the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success given the Board\u2019s fact-based findings (low intensity/frequency of past ill-treatment, no evidence of intent, availability of state protection and internal relocation) and there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness warranting intervention; therefore extension of time was refused and leave dismissed.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Persecution (refugee convention article 33)
    • Extension of time

  • 2 Nov 2023

    NGUYEN THI NGOC HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2825
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL625/2023

    Leave was dismissed because the applicant’s grounds were vague, lacked necessary particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board made findings open to them on the evidence (low risk, private dispute, availability of state protection and internal relocation); no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was established and the applicant confirmed it was safe to return, thus no prospect of success for judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Procedural fairness
    • Judicial review - wednesbury unreasonableness

  • 17 Oct 2023

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

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2679
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL884/2019

    Leave was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacking particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board's findings that the risk was low, localized and that state protection and internal relocation were available were legally sound and unsupported by identifiable error, and the Applicant had confirmed her wish to return to Bangladesh removing any prospect of success.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Procedural fairness
    • State protection and internal relocation
    • Risk of torture
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)

  • 14 Sept 2023

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

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2337
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1835/2020

    Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s and Board’s assessments; the Board reasonably found low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and thus there is no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Persecution (refugee convention article 33)
    • Internal relocation

  • 23 Feb 2023

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

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 444
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL725/2019

    No error of law or procedural unfairness was identified; the Board's findings that the risk upon refoulement was low, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the appeal could be decided on paper were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Internal relocation
    • State protection

  • 4 Aug 2020

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

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 1846
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1915/2018

    Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that risks were low, state protection and internal relocation available, and no evidence of state involvement were not challengeable and therefore no reasonable prospect of success existed for judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Right to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • Persecution (refugee convention article 33)
    • Judicial review - leave

  • 31 Jul 2020

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

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 1760
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1735/2018

    Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk, state protection and internal relocation were supported by reasons and there was no shown error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture prohibition
    • Risk to life (hkbor article 2)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (hkbor article 3)
    • State protection
    • Internal relocation