Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 2 (right to life)

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1429/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's extensive consideration of the evidence and COI; credibility and risk assessments are within the Board's fact‑finding remit and the court will not usurp that role.
18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2505
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1332/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds in Form 86 and did not make the required full and frank disclosure, and because the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to be tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
15 May 2026

CANDALO MARY ANN BANDOLES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2460/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were factual, lawfully reached and not vitiated by procedural unfairness, irrationality or error of law, so the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
14 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL795/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legally arguable error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies and the availability of internal relocation was a valid basis to reject the claim, making the proposed challenge without a prospect of success.
7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2323
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2188/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the Board's factual findings that the applicant's account was incredible and that there was no real risk of torture or ill-treatment were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended judicial review challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2413
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1415/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's factual findings (no risk of harm, internal relocation viable, state protection available) were supported by the evidence.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2183
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1558/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any arguable public law grounds and did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were factual findings within the Board's remit and were not susceptible to judicial interference on the material before the court.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1461/2025

Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the Board accepted the facts but reasonably concluded risks were unsubstantiated, state protection existed and internal relocation was viable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL260/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, absence of evidence of a real risk, viability of internal relocation and availability of state protection were within the Board's fact-finding discretion and there was no shown error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1662/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings and credibility assessments fell squarely within its province and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.