Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 3 (prohibition of torture/cidtp)

Legal area

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

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.
17 Mar 2026

NALWOOGA ANGELA AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1419
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1199/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants have no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully and fairly considered the evidence (including child-specific factors), found no substantiated risk of torture, death, persecution or CIDTP, and identified internal relocation and domestic legal protections as viable, such that judicial intervention was not justified.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1463/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no valid or specific grounds of challenge, had no realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
11 Mar 2026

NINH THI LIEN PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1372
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1497/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by identified discrepancies and lack of supporting evidence; there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of severe harm; state protection and internal relocation were found viable; no procedural unfairness was established. Therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
21 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1232/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any valid legal ground and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and risk were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore were not susceptible to supervisory intervention.
19 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5521
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1106/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings (including credibility findings, absence of severe pain or suffering and availability of state protection) were open to it on the evidence and justified dismissal of the appeal.
8 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1232/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground, provided no evidence to undermine the Board's findings (including that there was no BOR 3 risk), and thus had no realistic prospect of success; absence of BOR 3 risk precluded an arguable BOR 2 claim and the new documents did not materially advance the case.
15 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2044
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1126/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the claimed risk was not substantial and that protection/internal relocation were available involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality.
10 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 53
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL791/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board gave adequate reasons for adverse credibility findings, reasonably assessed low risk, relied on available COI and case law, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of succeeding on judicial review.