Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture/article 3 bor

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

RE TRAN TRONG DAI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1116
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP114/2025

The Court refused to extend time because the applicant's delay of over 25 months was serious and inadequately explained (failure to update contact details and imprisonment did not excuse delay), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success since the Board, accepting the applicant's account, made factual findings that the harm did not meet the required severity and state protection/internal relocation were available; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review, therefore extension would be futile and the summons was dismissed.
19 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5597
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2145/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects: the Board conducted a fair hearing, made credibility findings that defeated the claims, correctly applied legal principles under the USM and BOR, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
29 Aug 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL725/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Board's decision was a logical and reasonable assessment of the evidence with no procedural irregularity or Wednesbury unreasonableness; the applicant's evidence was found not credible and failed to establish real risk of death, torture or persecution, state protection and internal relocation were available, the leave application was filed well outside the three-month limit without good reason, and the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application.
3 May 2024

RE SITI ENDANG KOMASIH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 393
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV136/2023

The Judge correctly found no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's refusal of late filing under the amended Immigration Ordinance and provided no evidence capable of overturning the Director's risk assessment; accordingly the refusal of leave was properly upheld and the appeal dismissed.
25 Jan 2024

RE ERVINA SUSANTI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 98
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP186/2023

Extension of time was refused because the delay was short but the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the judge had considered the merits and relevant matters, no error of law or procedural unfairness was identified, and therefore granting an extension would be futile; the applicant's request to dismiss the appeal was also acceded to.
17 Jan 2024

RE IQBAL ADNAN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 48
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP239/2023

The summons for extension of time to appeal is dismissed because the applicant was about three months late, provided no adequate explanation for the delay, failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness so that the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; granting extension would be futile.
21 Jul 2023

RE HUSSAIN KHALID

Citation

[2023] HKCA 886
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV131/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review or any error of law or procedural irregularity in the Board's decision; accordingly the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave was correct and not open to appellate disturbance under the applicable standard.
28 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL695/2019

Extension of time was refused and the application dismissed because the applicant's delay (about five and a half months) was unjustified, there was no realistic prospect of success on the substantive non-refoulement/torture claim, and any procedural defect under section 15 of Schedule 1A was rendered excused by the applicant's failure to keep contact details updated so that the Board could give notice; adverse credibility findings were properly open to the Board under section 37ZD.
15 Dec 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3744
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL630/2019

The leave application was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; their findings that the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and that the Applicant's account was largely hearsay and speculative were defensible on the evidence, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
18 Oct 2022

MOHAMMED ABBAS ALIAS MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2471/2020

Refused extension of time and dismissed leave application because the delay was substantial and unexplained, the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground, the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were rational and free of legal error, and judicial review is not a forum to re-evaluate factual findings absent legal error or unfairness.