Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 3 (torture and inhuman treatment)

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

CANDALO MARY ANN BANDOLES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2460/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were factual, lawfully reached and not vitiated by procedural unfairness, irrationality or error of law, so the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
17 Nov 2025

VO MANH HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL419/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Director and Board lawfully found the risk from private creditors to be low, state protection and internal relocation available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown such as would justify judicial intervention.
3 Jul 2025

HIDDADURA DEWAYALAGE SUGANDIKA AMARASINGHE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL44/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably concluded that the risk was localized, internal relocation was available, and thus there were no substantial grounds for believing the Applicant faced the requisite real risk; further, the Applicant later confirmed it was safe to return, eliminating prospect of success.
22 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL35/2020

No reasonably arguable grounds were identified because the Director and the Board applied correct legal principles, made credible findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation, and there was no demonstrable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
3 Apr 2024

NGUYEN BUI LE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 964
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1180/2021

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed that the applicant faced only a localized, low risk arising from a private monetary dispute; credibility findings were sustainable; state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified and there was therefore no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.
13 Jan 2023

PEREZ MARIA EXUPERIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL631/2019

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the availability of reasonable internal relocation were lawful and supported by evidence; judicial review is not a rehearing of the factual assessment of risk.
29 Jul 2022

BUNSRI KAIWIT ALIAS BUNSRI ANUCHIT alias BUNSRI CHAIWAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1553/2020

Leave was dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without satisfactory explanation for a substantial six-month delay and failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's detailed, reasoned decisions that found no substantial grounds for real and substantial risk and identified reasonable internal relocation; there was therefore no prospect of success.
27 Apr 2022

THEKKETHALAKKAL VASUDEVAN UNNIKANNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL165/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation was reasonable were within the primary decision-makers' remit and not open to challenge on judicial review at the leave stage.
15 Dec 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL97/2019

Both the Director and the Appeal Board lawfully and rationally assessed the claim, concluding the risk was localized, state protection and NGO supports existed, and reasonable internal relocation was available; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified and consequently there were no substantial grounds for a judicial-review challenge, so leave to apply was refused.
7 Dec 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2637
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL984/2017

The applicant failed to particularize alleged procedural irregularities and did not demonstrate any arguable legal error; the Board heard the applicant, made adverse credibility findings supported by evidence and reasoning, and there was no procedural unfairness or irrationality that would justify granting leave for judicial review, therefore leave is refused.