Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor article 3 prohibition of torture

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

BUI THE VU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 557
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL182/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was brought out of time with no satisfactory explanation for a substantial delay, the intended grounds were bare and unarguable, the Board’s credibility-based rejection of the non-refoulement claim disclosed no legal error or procedural unfairness, internal relocation made protection unnecessary, and there was no prospect of success.
20 Nov 2025

UZOMA CHUKWUNONSO CALISTUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL27/2021

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the claims were speculative and unsupported by credible evidence; BOR 2 was not engaged and internal relocation was available, so no prospect of success on judicial review.
9 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL376/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed the applicant's claim as presenting low risk; they relied on absence of intent to inflict serious harm, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified by the applicant; additionally the applicant confirmed issues were resolved, so there was no prospect of success.
22 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL190/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision makers reasonably found credibility defects, localized risk confined to Casamance, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and therefore no prospect of success on judicial review was established.
8 Apr 2025

KIKI RIZKI ANANDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL557/2022

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's findings that the risk was localized, threats were not shown to be capable of causing death or serious harm, and effective state protection and reasonable internal relocation within Indonesia were available; judicial review cannot be used to rehear the factual risk assessment.
20 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2281/2024

Leave was granted because the court concluded the applicant raised reasonably arguable grounds that the Board acted unlawfully or irrationally in (1) finding no real intention by the complainant to kill without adequate evidential basis, (2) failing to properly consider possible Taliban involvement and state acquiescence, (3) inadequately assessing risk to life under HKBOR Article 2, and (4) wrongly treating internal relocation as viable; those issues warranted anxious scrutiny on judicial review.
1 Aug 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL449/2023

Leave was refused because the application was brought some 3.5 years out of time with no explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions about low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were open to it, and BOR 2 was not properly engaged on the facts.
6 Feb 2024

TRAN THI PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2154/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies applied the correct law, made reasonable credibility findings, and properly considered state protection and internal relocation, so there is no prospect of success on judicial review.
30 Sept 2021

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2926
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1039/2021

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's 6‑week delay was substantial and not adequately explained; the intended judicial review had no real prospect of success because the Board's adverse credibility findings and lack of corroboration were supported by the record and no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; accordingly leave was dismissed.
14 Oct 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL170/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Board had lawfully and reasonably affirmed the Director’s finding of low risk based on the private nature of the dispute, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and because the core factual basis of the applicant's claim ceased to exist when the dispute was settled, removing any arguable ground for judicial review.