Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 2 and 3

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL9/2020

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application because the applicant was inordinate and substantially late (one year) without any satisfactory explanation, and because there was no arguable basis of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions — the Board's credibility findings and conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation left no prospect of success on judicial review.
10 Apr 2025

MOCKIAT JOHNSON ACKIADAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1310
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1042/2023

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 were supported by detailed reasons and oral hearing, and independent evidence and COI established availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, negating the non-refoulement claim.
23 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1882/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claim did not meet the threshold for non-refoulement were open to it and were properly reached; the Applicant had not advanced grounds in Form 86 and had since withdrawn and returned to India.
7 May 2024

DIAN LESTARI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL78/2019

Leave refused because the applicants' grounds were vague and lacked particulars; the Board and Director gave reasoned decisions showing no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the risk was found localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; the child's claim was adequately considered; there was no real prospect of success.
6 Sept 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2277
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1365/2020

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions as to state protection and internal relocation were within the permissible evaluative range and thus not susceptible to judicial review as a rehearing.
10 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 388
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL886/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers applied the law, made credibility findings and reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
28 Oct 2022

HEMBA WADUGE NISHANTHA JANAKA KALYANARATHNA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL176/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record, the risk asserted was localized and internal relocation was reasonably available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
4 May 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1224
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1524/2018

The Judge found the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's conclusions that there was no real risk, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claim was inadequately supported were not legally flawed or irrational; accordingly there was no prospect of success on judicial review and leave was dismissed.
14 Sept 2020

FITRIA-NUR-HIDAYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2243
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL866/2018

Applicant's leave application was refused because she filed more than eight months late without any satisfactory explanation, and there was no reasonably arguable ground of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions which found no real risk of harm, available state protection and feasible internal relocation; accordingly there was no prospect of success and no good reason to extend time.
27 Dec 2019

VU HUU HOI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1676/2018

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the application was 12 days late and, on merits, the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings which were findings of fact for the Immigration authorities and left no arguable ground for judicial review.