Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hkbor articles 2 and 3

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2331
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1509/2024

The applicant failed to identify arguable public law errors or show realistic prospects of success; the Board applied the law correctly and its factual findings about lack of real risk, sufficiency of severity, and availability of state protection/internal relocation were not susceptible to judicial review; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
27 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1357/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bald, vague and lacked necessary particulars and therefore were not reasonably arguable; the Board and Director conducted lawful, fair and reasonable assessments—finding low localized risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation—and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was established to justify judicial review.
27 Apr 2026

SUGIANA I KOMANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2338
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2060/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision‑makers applied correct legal principles, reasonably assessed low risk and availability of state protection and internal relocation, and judicial review is not a vehicle to re‑weigh credibility or retry factual assessments.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1864/2024

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision‑makers reasonably found the risk was localized, low in intensity, subject to available state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the applicant had no prospect of success on judicial review.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1698/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error; the Board's adverse factual findings on credibility and document authenticity were supported and within its province; there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality warranting interference on judicial review, and the leave application was therefore not reasonably arguable.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2189/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's Form 86 failed to identify clear and reasonably arguable grounds, the supporting affirmation was vague, the Board's decision contained factual findings about credibility and availability of state protection which did not disclose any public law error, and therefore the intended challenge had no realistic prospects of success.
17 Apr 2026

NGUYEN DUC TOAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2113
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1000/2023

Leave dismissed because the applicant was inordinate and materially out of time (over nine months) without good reason and his proposed grounds were bare, vague and not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board had made no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in finding the harm was a private dispute with low risk and that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available; applicant later affirmed it was safe to return.
10 Apr 2026

ZIA UL ISLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1665
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1732/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise grounds or make full and frank disclosure in Form 86, the Board's adverse factual findings were within its province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended judicial review challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1878
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2014/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of judicial review or to show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board applied the correct law, observed a high standard of fairness, and its factual credibility findings (including availability of state protection and internal relocation) were not susceptible to review at the leave stage.
10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1171/2025

Because the Board dismissed the applicant's appeal in his absence without determining the merits on the papers, thereby arguably breaching the high standard of fairness and being potentially unreasonable and procedurally unfair, and because the applicant's intended judicial review is reasonably arguable, the court will extend time despite a seven-year delay and grant leave to apply for judicial review on the stated grounds, subject to the applicant filing and serving an originating summons within 14 days.