Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture/cidtp risk assessment

Legal area

Court

12 Jul 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1980
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1511/2020

Leave was granted because the Board committed procedural impropriety by refusing to consider the merits of the applicant's case (as demonstrated by the Director's Decision) when exercising its discretion under s37ZT to allow late filing; the applicant therefore has a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
28 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL244/2019

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully and rationally rejected the applicant's evidence for cogent reasons; there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success for judicial review given the absence of credible factual basis for the claimed risks.
12 Mar 2021

SANDAL LAKHWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1267/2018

Leave refused because the applicant offered no pleaded grounds or evidence demonstrating an arguable case; the Board's findings that risk was low, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were not shown to be legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational, and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.
24 Sept 2018

RE MOJUMDER SONJOY

Citation

[2018] HKCA 634
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case: the Board's adverse credibility finding was entitled and not Wednesbury unreasonable, the Director's single procedural error in not reconsidering torture risk was cured by the Adjudicator's reconsideration, no error of law or procedural unfairness remained and there were no realistic prospects of success on judicial review.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

SANDAL LAKHWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RE MOJUMDER SONJOY