Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture (article 3 hkbor)

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2026

NNAEKPE EMMANUEL OKORO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 872
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL268/2021

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant gave no good reason for his 13-day delay and, on the merits, there were no arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the availability of internal relocation meant there was no realistic prospect of success, so leave was refused and the application dismissed.
31 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1940/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Board and Director applied the correct legal tests, there was no demonstrable legal error or procedural unfairness, the risk was assessed as localized and low, state involvement was not shown and internal relocation was reasonably available, so no prospect of success on judicial review existed.
29 Apr 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1306/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, inconsistencies, COI and availability of state protection and internal relocation were not shown to involve errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting court intervention.
17 Oct 2022

NURHAYATI-MARBUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3182
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL141/2019

The application for extension of time was refused because the Applicant was 12 months out of time, provided no good reason for the inordinate delay, and the intended grounds lacked reasonable arguability because they were broad, vague and not particularised; the Director's and Board's decisions showed no legal error or procedural unfairness, so there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.
11 Mar 2022

MARCELLANO MARIA CRIS PACAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL428/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Court found no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's findings that the risk was localized, that state protection was available and internal relocation was feasible were supported by evidence and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
17 Jun 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 426
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL439/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by the evidence (including the applicant's refusal to give evidence), and reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available such that there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
21 Sept 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL27/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error in the Board's or Director's decisions; credibility findings and risk assessments by the primary decision-makers were open to them on the evidence, there was no demonstrable procedural unfairness from late disclosure of the hearing bundle, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
14 Sept 2018

AHMED FARUQUE v. IAN CANDY, ESQ., AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced broad and vague allegations without particulars, the Board’s credibility findings and consideration of COI and internal relocation were open on the record, there was no demonstrated error of law or procedural unfairness and therefore no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.