Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 2 (bor 2)

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4865
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1786/2020

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law ground against the Board's 2nd Decision, did not challenge the Board's fact findings that there was no real/personal risk under BOR 2 or BOR 3 (or torture/persecution), and therefore had no realistic prospect of success in judicial review; precedent confirms BOR 2 cannot be sustained absent BOR 3 risk.
2 Dec 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL104/2019

Applicant’s leave application was out of time with an inordinate delay and no good reason was shown; the intended grounds lacked reasonable prospects of success because the Director and Board rationally found no real risk of serious harm given availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; no legal error or procedural unfairness justified intervention; accordingly extension of time refused and leave dismissed.
28 Oct 2020

VU THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1419/2019

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was significantly out of time without adequate excuse, the arguable aspects of her case would not succeed given uncontested findings by the Director and Board that the risk was private, localized and that state protection and internal relocation were available, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was established to justify granting leave or extending time.
22 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL880/2017

Leave refused because the court was not satisfied there was any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: applicant failed to provide particulars of new evidence, had opportunity to present his case and was assisted by counsel at earlier stage and by an interpreter at the Board hearing, and the Board\'s factual assessment (low risk, state protection and reasonable internal relocation) had no obvious legal flaw or unfairness, therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

VU THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

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