Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Screening and appeal procedures

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2617
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1490/2022

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague, lacking particulars and not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board lawfully and rationally assessed a low risk of serious harm, found state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified.
20 Mar 2026

GALVEZ MA THERESA SOMOLOSTRO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL923/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars to show any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Director or the Board; the Director and Board reasonably assessed the risk as low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and there was no prospect of success; the Applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return to the Philippines, reinforcing dismissal of the leave application.
6 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL706/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decisions reasonably found the risk was low and localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and the Applicant had effectively withdrawn his challenge by confirming his issue was resolved and he wished to return to India.
6 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1214
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL990/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedurally unfair conduct by the Director or the Board, presented only bare assertions without particulars, did not attend the appeal hearing undermining credibility, the Board reasonably found any risk to be low and that internal relocation was available, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear merits absent demonstrated legal error; moreover the applicant later confirmed withdrawal and resolution of issues, removing any prospect of success.
19 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6224
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL270/2022

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision-makers conducted rigorous review, reasonably found the risk localized and low, that state protection and internal relocation in India were available, and thus there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
3 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 139
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2483/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both bodies lawfully found the risk from a private creditor to be low, state protection and internal relocation available, and the applicant did not advance specific grounds in his leave application, so there was no prospect of success.
12 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3116
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1336/2020

The application for leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board lawfully assessed the risk as low, found state protection and internal relocation available, and there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
19 Oct 2023

VILLANUEVA ARLEEN AGELION v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1458/2021

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably concluded the risk was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and judicial review cannot substitute for the primary evaluative role of the Director and the Board; additionally the applicant indicated it was safe to return.
14 Sept 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1835/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s and Board’s assessments; the Board reasonably found low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and thus there is no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
10 May 2023

BUI THI QUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1226
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1233/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies made permissible findings that the risk from the creditor was low, that the dispute was private, that state protection and reasonable internal relocation in Vietnam were available, and the applicant had opportunity to give evidence and clarify her case; the leave application thus had no real prospect of success and was dismissed.