Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 3 (prohibition of torture)

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2391/2025

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave application was warranted because the applicant's almost nine months' unexplained delay was inordinate, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and there was no prospect of success such that leave should be refused.
17 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2080
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL943/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant had been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong on 2 March 2022 and therefore no longer required non-refoulement protection, rendering the application for leave academic.
14 Apr 2026

RENI WIDIASTUTIK AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1536/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused for the 1st Applicant because no reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified in the Board’s assessment of her claim; leave was granted for the 2nd Applicant because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to give separate and adequate consideration to the child’s claim, including failure to make findings on her nationality/right to return and failure to consider her racially mixed parentage in assessing persecution risk, thereby meeting the leave threshold.
12 Mar 2026

ANGGA SUSI SUSANTI BT TARWIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1499
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL931/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational and supported by the evidence including the applicant's refusal to give oral evidence, and the Director and Board correctly concluded that internal relocation rendered non-refoulement protection unnecessary.
13 Feb 2026

ARZAGA CHRISTOPHER JOHN CO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL931/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify grounds or make full disclosure in the Form 86 and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available rendered the intended challenge not reasonably arguable.
30 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1377/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the assessment that any risk was localized and manageable by internal relocation were adequately reasoned and within the decision-makers' purview, so judicial review was not available to re-litigate those evaluations.
3 Apr 2025

DIPU MD AMIR HOSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2398/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably assessed low risk, availability of state protection and feasibility of internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
14 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3147
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL622/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, and the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally found low risk of serious harm, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; therefore there was no prospect of success for judicial review.
19 Sept 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1267/2024

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 assessed the risk as low, relied on COI and internal relocation, and therefore the applicant has no prospect of success on judicial review.
5 Sept 2024

ACERO EDELYN BAREJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2287
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL394/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's adverse credibility findings or in the Director/Board's assessment that the risk was low and internal relocation was available; absent such legal error the court will not usurp the Board's primary fact‑finding role.