Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Judicial review - standard of review

  • 14 May 2026

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

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2715
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL922/2023

    Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and Board properly assessed risk, found any past threats were low intensity and localized and that reasonable internal relocation was available, and the Board's oral hearing and reasoning were not irrational or unfair.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Procedural fairness
    • Internal relocation
    • Judicial review - standard of review
    • Translation and interpreter issues

  • 6 May 2026

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

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2475
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL224/2026

    The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were permissible and determinative, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Right to life (article 2 hkbor)
    • Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 3 hkbor)
    • State protection
    • Internal relocation

  • 24 Mar 2026

    KURNIA YANU WARDANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1700
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL2268/2023

    There was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review because the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally assessed credibility and country information, found the risk from the creditor to be low and localized, identified available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown; the applicant also indicated withdrawal, so leave was dismissed.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Credibility assessment
    • Internal relocation
    • Judicial review - standard of review

  • 8 Oct 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4267
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1227/2020

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and thus had no realistic prospect of success; the court will not overturn factual findings properly made by the Board.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture prohibition
    • Article 2 hkbor (right to life)
    • Article 3 hkbor (no cidtp)
    • Part viic immigration ordinance
    • Judicial review - standard of review

  • 18 Sept 2025

    ASIF NAZEER NOMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4312
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1666/2020

    Leave was 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 Board's findings that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational, supported by evidence, and not susceptible to successful judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Screening interview
    • Internal relocation
    • Judicial review - standard of review
    • Procedural fairness

  • 16 Sept 2025

    LE THI MINH DIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4113
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1503/2020

    Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board; credibility findings and the assessment that the risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available were sustainable, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Internal relocation
    • Credibility findings
    • Judicial review - standard of review

  • 19 Dec 2024

    AGNES AYUNINGSIH alias AGNES-AYUNINGSIH alias AYUNINGSIH, AGNES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3556
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL967/2023

    There was no reasonably arguable legal basis to challenge the Board's dismissal because the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally found the applicant's risk of serious harm to be low, treated threats as lacking real intent, reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Hkbor articles 2 and 3
    • Internal relocation
    • Judicial review - standard of review

  • 19 Sept 2024

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

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2506
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1267/2024

    Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably assessed the risk as low, relied on COI and internal relocation, and therefore the applicant has no prospect of success on judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Hkbor article 2 (right to life)
    • Hkbor article 3 (prohibition of torture)
    • Persecution (refugee convention article 33)
    • Internal relocation

  • 12 Apr 2024

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

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 921
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1902/2020

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's assessment of BOR 2 risk fell within its fact-finding remit, no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, no fresh or particularised evidence undermined the Board's conclusions, internal relocation and state protection were reasonably assessed, and the child-specific ground was inapplicable as the second applicant is now an adult.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Refoulement
    • Right to life (bor 2)
    • Torture/cidtp
    • State protection
    • Internal relocation

  • 1 Feb 2023

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

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 307
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL739/2020

    Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's findings that the risk from NPFL is low, that state protection and internal relocation are available, and therefore there is no prospect of success on judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Hkbor article 2 (right to life)
    • Hkbor article 3 (prohibition of torture and cidt)
    • Persecution
    • Internal relocation