Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 3

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1489/2025

The application was refused because it was filed overwhelmingly outside the three-month limit without any explanation for the serious delay and the proposed grounds did not show a realistic prospect of success given that the Board's findings on lack of evidence, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within its province and not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed.
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.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1678/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (that the applicant's motive was to remain in Hong Kong for employment and that state protection in Indonesia was available) were within the Board's fact-finding province and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review.
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.
30 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1700/2023

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked particulars and did not identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's findings on low localized risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were rational and supported by evidence and credibility findings; consequently there was no prospect of success (and the Applicant subsequently confirmed issues resolved).
11 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1371
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1369/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any valid legal ground; the Board's decision that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection and internal relocation were available was not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.