Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 3 (prohibition of torture and cidtp)

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1334/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse findings on absence of serious risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were factually supported and within the Board's fact-finding discretion; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings of inconsistency, lack of credibility and absence of evidential basis for the alleged risks were open to the Board and there was no established error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its decision; state protection and internal relocation findings were sustainable.
15 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1247/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant did not raise any valid legal ground, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings (that the claim was likely fabricated and internal relocation was viable) did not disclose error of law or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention.
9 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5883
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1178/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic or arguable prospect of success: he raised no valid ground to impugn the Board's credibility and risk findings, which were not shown to be unlawful, procedurally unfair or irrational.
12 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1095/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings; the Board's factual conclusions (unexplained 14‑month delay, private nature of dispute, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation) were not susceptible to supervisory intervention and the applicant therefore lacked a realistic prospect of success.
30 Nov 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3095
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1906/2020

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the short delay was not justified and, critically, the intended grounds were unarguable: they were vague, lacked particulars and did not identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions which reasonably relied on evidence of a private, localized dispute, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation in Indonesia.
15 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1247/2019

Inordinate delay of over ten months without any adequate explanation, combined with the absence of any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions (which found low risk, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation), meant there was no good reason to extend time and no prospect of success; extension was refused and leave dismissed.
23 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1045/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
1 Mar 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 479
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1188/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk conclusions were supported by the record, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality warranting judicial intervention.