Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of torture and cidtp

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 485
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1236/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable or legally tenable ground for judicial review and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility and absence of real risk were within its fact-finding remit and were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
22 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2266/2020

Extension of time was refused and the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was over two years and seven months late, the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay or to identify specific grounds of challenge, and there was no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings that there was no evidence of state inability or unwillingness to protect, no BOR 3 injuries, no persecution risk and internal relocation was viable.
4 Jul 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1625
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1438/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board made reasoned, rational findings on credibility and evidence within its fact-finding remit, accepted incidents where supported but found exaggeration and inconsistency on key allegations, and properly concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available and the applicable risks were not established; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown.
19 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1332/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the claim was unsubstantiated, state protection available and internal relocation viable involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonable decision-making, and therefore judicial review was not warranted.
13 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL69/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
22 Sept 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2928
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL708/2019

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the Board's factual findings—low intensity/frequency of past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation—were not shown to be legally tainted; the 2nd applicant's claim depended on the 1st applicant and no child-specific grounds were advanced; non-representation of the minor was treated as a procedural irregularity but did not establish a realistic prospect of success to justify extending time or granting leave.
16 May 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL74/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were supported by the evidence and country information, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.
1 Mar 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 487
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1229/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the Board erred in law by refusing to extend time without considering the merits of the Director's substantive decisions and without taking into account relevant matters within its knowledge as required by s37ZT and established authorities; that failure rendered the Board's decisions unlawful and justifies permission to seek full judicial review.
23 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1281
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1758/2018

Leave was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board may have committed procedural unfairness by failing to consider the Director's Decision/Further Decision and by refusing to permit clarification or a hearing and by not taking merits into account when addressing delay, thereby giving rise to an arguable ground for judicial review.