Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 2

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

MAI THI PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2613
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL665/2023

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was justified because the Board and Director made rational, lawful decisions: credibility findings and assessment of low risk, availability of police protection and reasonable internal relocation were supported by evidence and COI; no arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified to warrant judicial intervention under Wednesbury standards.
5 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2485
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL668/2023

The Board's findings that the risk was low, based on lack of evidence of intent to seriously harm, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, were rational and not tainted by legal error or procedural unfairness; the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground and thereafter sought to withdraw, therefore there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
28 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL167/2024

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably assessed the risk as low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and the Applicant later confirmed it was safe to return, so there was no prospect of success.
17 Apr 2026

SAENG IN SUGANDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2112
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL756/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably found the claim to be a private monetary dispute with low-intensity past ill-treatment, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the Applicant did not present a proper ground for judicial review.
10 Apr 2026

CABRISTANTE MEL VALERIE CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1541/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's Form 86 failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds or disclose material facts, the Board's decision displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the application was filed one year late with no explanation so no extension of time was justified.
2 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1928
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL131/2023

The application for leave was dismissed because the Director and the Board made reasonable, lawful and procedurally fair findings that the risk of serious harm was localized and that internal relocation and state protection rendered non-refoulement inapplicable; the applicant failed to identify any legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness and thus no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review existed.
15 Jan 2026

MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1935/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant was inordinate and inexplicably delayed (approximately 3.5 years) in seeking leave, he failed to put forward reasonably arguable grounds with necessary particulars, and there was no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's determinations including credibility findings and the availability of internal relocation; accordingly there was no prospect of success to justify granting leave.
22 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2018/2020

No reasonably arguable case of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified in the Director's or the Board's decisions; their findings that there was no reliable evidence of an MJFN threat, that state protection and internal relocation in Nepal were available, and that BOR 2 was not engaged, were supported by the record; therefore there was no prospect of success and leave was refused.
22 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1296/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that any risks were localized and internal relocation available were not shown to be legally challengeable, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
19 Dec 2025

SAMIM MALICK alias DIPAK MULLICK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6349
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL338/2022

Leave was dismissed because the application was inordinate (approximately seven years late) without acceptable justification, the proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated in the Director's or Board's decisions; additionally the applicant confirmed he no longer sought protection and wished to return to India.