Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to life article 2 hkbor

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1188
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1923/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that the risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available were lawful and rational, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
11 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1911/2020

Leave was refused because the application was filed more than three months late without any explanation or good reason and the intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable merit: the Director and the Board made reasoned findings of credibility, localized risk and availability of state protection/internal relocation and no legal error or procedural unfairness was identified that would justify intervention by judicial review.
13 Feb 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1167/2017

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning and the assessed risk was localized with reasonable internal relocation alternatives, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
27 Aug 2024

NGUYEN VAN BAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL466/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed 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; the decisions were supported by evidence that the risk from the creditor was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
14 Nov 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2923
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL271/2019

The court found no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, that the applicant failed to establish a real risk engaging BOR 2 or BOR 3 on the facts and failed to provide particulars or additional facts to justify further process, and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection made non-refoulement protection unnecessary; accordingly there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.
9 Nov 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL947/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were rationally supported following an oral hearing; reliable COI established availability of state protection and internal relocation; the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised; and the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia.
19 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL768/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's well-reasoned adverse credibility findings and in the Director/Board assessment that the risk was localized and mitigable by state protection or internal relocation; judicial review cannot be used to re-hear factual assessments absent legal error.
10 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL518/2023

The Board and the Director conducted lawful and fair proceedings; the adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and detailed reasoning; absence of legal representation at the Board hearing and non-provision of a translation did not cause prejudice; reasonable internal relocation within India was available; no error of law or procedural unfairness was established and therefore there is no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review, so leave is refused.
19 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 551
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL955/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the risk was assessed as localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, credibility concerns remained unexplained, and judicial review is not a vehicle to rehear the factual risk assessment of primary decision-makers.
4 Apr 2023

CONDEZ JUDELYN SAMELLANO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 489
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL368/2019

Leave was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board acted procedurally unfairly by failing to separately and sufficiently consider child-specific matters relating to A2 and/or erred in concluding it was unnecessary to consider internal relocation for the Applicants; these arguable errors satisfy the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review.