Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 3 (prohibition of torture

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2081
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL61/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or make full disclosure, offered no explanation for the one-month delay, and the Board's credibility-based factual findings disclosed no public law error, unfairness or irrationality and therefore the intended challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 984
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL330/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions, which reasonably found no real risk of serious harm given the private nature of the dispute, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; judicial review will not re‑evaluate facts absent identified legal error.
27 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1583/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and without necessary particulars; the Director and Board lawfully and rationally evaluated credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was established and there was no realistic prospect of success.
27 Jan 2026

SALKA CASNITI BT KARJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL621/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably concluded the threats were not evidence of a real and substantial risk, state protection and internal relocation were available, and the applicant provided no particulars on leave and later confirmed she wished to return to Indonesia, so there was no prospect of success.
2 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5872
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1872/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; the BOR 2 ground was not engaged on the facts; and the Director’s and Board’s findings that state protection and internal relocation would negate any real risk were rational and adequately reasoned, making judicial review inappropriate.
9 Sept 2025

RAQUEL LIA GILHANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3844
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1379/2025

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of approximately 5 years 9 months was inordinate, no satisfactory explanation was provided, and the intended judicial review disclosed no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; accordingly leave was refused and the application dismissed.
13 Jul 2022

PASAOA ROMEO JR MEJIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2115
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1326/2019

Leave 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; both bodies reasonably rejected the claim on credibility, low intensity of past harm, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and judicial review is not a vehicle to rehear such factual assessments.
22 Jan 2019

KHAN MEHDI HASSAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL528/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; the decisions that the risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation was available were rational and supported by the evidence; the applicant’s grounds were vague, unparticularised and, as to the Director’s decision, in any event superseded by the Board’s appeal; there was therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.