Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hong kong bill of rights article 3

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5384
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2304/2020

The Board's Decision, limited to BOR 2, involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the Applicant failed to submit additional evidence after invitation, there was no proof of the alleged new murder claim, the appropriate remedy for changed circumstances is a s37ZO subsequent claim, the Board was entitled to decide on papers and had earlier found credibility defects; accordingly the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable and leave is refused.
24 Jul 2025

LAKHVIR SINGH v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1085/2020

Although the NRCPO's refusal to allow late filing displayed procedural shortcomings (insufficient inquiry about change of address and failure to consider merits), the applicant had not produced any additional facts or materials relevant to BOR2 that were not previously assessed; therefore any error was immaterial because the decision would inevitably have been the same and the leave application was not reasonably arguable; leave is refused.
19 Dec 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL765/2023

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; the evidence and COI supported findings of low localized risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and thus there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
2 Sept 2024

RE VU THI LY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 833
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP374/2023

The extension of time was refused because the unexplained three-day delay was minimal but the intended appeal had no prospect of success: the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's or Board's decisions and the factual findings did not meet the BOR Article 3 threshold, so granting an extension would be futile.
1 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL531/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Board reasonably found the risk to be localized and low, state protection and internal relocation in India were available, and no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified that would justify judicial review.
27 May 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1949/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be irrational or procedurally unfair, and available state protection and reasonable internal relocation meant non‑refoulement protection was not established.
5 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1352
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL367/2018

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was four months late with no satisfactory explanation and the intended application had no arguable grounds or identifiable legal error; the Director and the Board had lawfully and reasonably found no real or substantial risk, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success; leave was dismissed.
16 Jun 2020

MGBENKA KINGSLEY ONYEKACHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 883
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL156/2018

Applicant's application was seven months late with no explanation; there were no arguable grounds demonstrating error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; the claimed risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonably available; therefore no good reason to extend time and no prospect of success — extension refused and leave dismissed.
20 Sept 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL915/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decisions contained detailed reasons, properly considered the evidence and made a credibility-based assessment and internal relocation finding that were within their remit and not subject to rehearing on judicial review.
16 Apr 2019

VALDEZ EVELYN OCHOADA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 954
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1301/2018

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to challenge the Director's statutory screening decision and failed to show a reasonable prospect of success against the Board's factual findings; the Board's conclusions on risk, state protection, and severity were not shown to be susceptible to judicial review at the leave stage.