Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Screening and appeals

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1599
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL819/2021

Leave refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacking necessary particulars; neither the Director nor the Board committed identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness; the decisions that state protection and reasonable internal relocation rendered the risk insufficient for non-refoulement were lawful and the proposed judicial review had no real prospect of success.
12 Jan 2026

DANG THI THOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL758/2023

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to particularize arguable legal errors; the Director and Board reasonably found the risk from a private creditor to be low, credible state protection and internal relocation options existed supported by COI, credibility concerns undermined the claim, and there was no procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Applicant also affirmed it was safe to return.
20 Nov 2025

UZOMA CHUKWUNONSO CALISTUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL27/2021

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the claims were speculative and unsupported by credible evidence; BOR 2 was not engaged and internal relocation was available, so no prospect of success on judicial review.
6 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5263
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1944/2020

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions which had found the risk was localized and internal relocation in Pakistan was reasonable; judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits.
22 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL39/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise or substantiate any reasonably arguable legal errors; the Board's detailed credibility findings and assessment that the risk was private, localized and susceptible to state protection or internal relocation were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or irrational; judicial review is not a forum for re‑hearing the merits absent clear legal error; consequently there was no prospect of success.
3 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL889/2019

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; those decision-makers reasonably found credibility problems, low intensity/localized risk, availability of state protection and feasible internal relocation, and judicial review is not a forum to retry those factual evaluations.
3 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 37
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL641/2020

The application for leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal basis, error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board and Director properly evaluated the evidence, found the risk low, and reasonably concluded that police protection and internal relocation in India were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
14 Nov 2022

LAMA PEMA DORJE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3442
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL856/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review 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, which reasonably concluded the risk was localized and that state protection and internal relocation in Nepal made non-refoulement protection unwarranted.
26 Oct 2018

B K LIL BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1923
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL146/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error by the Director or the Adjudicator; both decision‑makers applied the correct legal tests, considered credible and relevant evidence, afforded procedural fairness, and reached decisions that were open and eminently reasonable on the facts, such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
31 Aug 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1822
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1102/2017

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to articulate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawful, unreasonable or unfair conduct by the Director or Adjudicator; the Adjudicator's decisions were lawfully reached, reasonable on the facts and afforded procedural fairness, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.