Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prohibition of torture and cidtp

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

PURNAMASARI YULI acting as guardian ad litem of YULI PURNAMASARI SEINA YUKARI GASHEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2029
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1310/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or arguable public law error: the Board reasonably found state protection, welfare and education would be available in Indonesia, language and relocation issues were resolvable, and there was no basis for upsetting the Board's factual findings.
3 Jan 2025

LAZARO JESSIE EULALIO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 63
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1868/2024

Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were within its fact‑finding role, there was no legal error, no procedural unfairness and the Board lawfully concluded state protection and internal relocation were available; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
5 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1853
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL181/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no substantial ground for torture, CIDTP or persecution, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality amenable to judicial review.
29 Jun 2020

OSMAN AGAMI ABDELMAKSOUD ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1732/2018

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the Board’s factual findings and legal application were within its remit, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, internal relocation was a viable option, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.
23 May 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1281
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1911/2018

Where a statutory appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board exists and the Board has decided the matter, an applicant cannot seek judicial review of the Director's decision absent exceptional circumstances; the Board properly rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated and inconsistent, leaving no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review, so leave is refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

PURNAMASARI YULI acting as guardian ad litem of YULI PURNAMASARI SEINA YUKARI GASHEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

LAZARO JESSIE EULALIO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

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

OSMAN AGAMI ABDELMAKSOUD ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

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