Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prohibition of cidtp (hkbor article 3)

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1520/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that evidence was inconsistent, and that risk was localized with viable internal relocation were lawful and not irrational; no arguable ground of public law error or procedural unfairness was shown.
29 Apr 2026

LE THI HONG PHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant relied on the same reasons as in the previous claim, failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO, produced only bare assertions without supporting evidence, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly the court dismissed the leave application and made a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
1 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1688
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1380/2025

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: he raised no specific legal grounds, and the Board's findings that he exaggerated his activism, that there were inconsistencies in his evidence, and that he failed to establish a real risk of ill-treatment or persecution were within the Board's fact-finding discretion; absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality the court will not overturn those findings.
16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 826
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1288/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant raised no valid grounds, confirmed the Board's Decision was not wrong, and failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the supervisory court therefore declined to interfere with the Board's factual findings.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 359
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2360/2025

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the application was filed over six months late, the applicant offered only bare assertions without evidential particulars or realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings of discrepancies, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation were not shown to be legally irrational or procedurally unfair.
5 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1162/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and its fact‑based assessment of risk.
18 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1009
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1301/2019

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's reasoned findings that threats were localized and unlikely to be carried out, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and thus she had no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
26 Feb 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 451
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1394/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were within its fact-finding province, supported by inconsistencies in the applicant's statements and COI indicating available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and there was no demonstrated error of law or procedural unfairness.
3 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2470
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL807/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's credibility and factual findings were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational; state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available; and the absence of legal representation for the minor was an irregularity only and did not invalidate the proceedings.
29 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1160/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was low, state protection was available and internal relocation viable were not shown to be vitiated by error of law or procedural unfairness, and the alleged procedural defects were speculative or unsupported.