Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prohibition of cidtp (article 3 hkbor)

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2382
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1464/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's findings, did not show a realistic prospect of success on review given the Board's factual findings that state protection was available and internal relocation viable, and the supervisory court will not overturn the Board's fact-finding absent error of law or irrationality.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1628
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1442/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully rejected the applicant's core evidence, and even accepting alleged facts internal relocation was viable; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown and the court cannot grant the applicant's request to speak to the adjudicator.
27 Feb 2026

PHUNG THI THUY DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 913
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1297/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the creditor threats did not amount to torture or a real risk to life, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or irrational.
12 Nov 2025

NGUYEN TU DOANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5162
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1105/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's challenges amounted to bare assertions lacking supporting evidence, he failed to establish a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's adverse credibility findings and alternative conclusion that risk was low with viable internal relocation meant no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness warranted supervisory intervention.
22 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1057/2025

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without adequate explanation or pleaded legal grounds and had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's unchallenged factual findings within its province of expertise.
16 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4622
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1054/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or that the Board's factual findings or reasons involved errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant had an opportunity to be heard and the Board's conclusions that the claim was unsubstantiated, state protection was available and internal relocation viable were not shown to be legally flawed.
13 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4451
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1051/2025

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed seven months late without satisfactory explanation and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that the matter was a private dispute and that state protection and remedies in Pakistan were available.
14 Mar 2024

QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1400/2019

The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board legitimately relied on COI, assessed credibility and risk, and concluded state protection and internal relocation were available; given the supervisory standard and the applicant's opportunity to be heard, there was no realistic prospect of success.
26 Feb 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1408/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and there was no realistic prospect of success.
11 Sept 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2245
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1150/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking requisite particulars and evidence, he did not apply to the Board for an adjournment, and he failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings that past ill-treatment was infrequent, there was no evidence of state involvement or sufficient severity, and state protection and internal relocation were viable; therefore no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown to justify judicial review.