Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of torture (part viic)

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1698/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error; the Board's adverse factual findings on credibility and document authenticity were supported and within its province; there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality warranting interference on judicial review, and the leave application was therefore not reasonably arguable.
10 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1736/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the live risk contention and, on the merits, he failed to identify any arguable ground showing error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision which had found no reasonable likelihood of harm and that internal relocation was available; accordingly the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
27 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1650
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1770/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify clear grounds and make full disclosure in Form 86, and the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
19 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5590
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1947/2024

Application dismissed because it was filed more than seven months late without any satisfactory explanation; the intended judicial review lacked arguable merit as no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision was identified; the Board and Director reasonably found the risk low, private dispute with state protection and viable internal relocation, and the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return.
26 Sept 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL166/2023

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was 2.5 months out of time without any explanation for the inordinate delay, the intended application disclosed no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the Board's assessment that the risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available was sustainable, and the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia.
24 Sept 2024

PHAM NHAT THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL507/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was brought about four months out of time without any satisfactory explanation, the proposed grounds lacked reasonable arguability or necessary particulars to show legal error, and the Director and the Board had not committed any legal error or procedural unfairness in finding low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation; consequently there was no prospect of success.
10 Mar 2023

NONG THI THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1197/2022

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was inordinate and substantially out of time (2 years 10 months) with no explanation, the intended challenge lacked identified legal errors or arguable merit, and the Director and Board lawfully and rationally concluded the risk was low with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available.
3 Mar 2023

HUSSAIN SAYYED RASHID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 539
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1552/2022

The leave application was refused because the subsequent claim failed the statutory test in section 37ZO — it did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, combined with prior material, would give a realistic prospect of success — and there was compelling evidence the applicant was re‑litigating settled facts, amounting to abuse of process; accordingly an RPO was necessary to prevent further abusive proceedings.
11 May 2022

ANUKUL KAR ALIAS BABUL DEB v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1311
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1759/2021

The court refused to extend time because the Applicant's delay of over seven months was inordinate and unexplained and, on the merits, the Director lawfully and reasonably applied s37ZO by finding no sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and the leave application dismissed.
24 Sept 2021

RE DOAN HUU DONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1395
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP137/2021

Extension of time refused because the applicant had a substantial unexplained delay of over five months and failed to particularise any arguable ground of appeal; the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's open and unchallenged adverse credibility findings, so granting an extension would be futile.