Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture (convention against torture)

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2333/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the Board had considered the COI and evidence, gave adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and its findings (including findings of unreliability) satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard applicable to non-refoulement cases.
2 Sept 2025

RAJA ARSHAD MAHMOOD alias AKHTAR NOVEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL657/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to articulate any reasonably arguable grounds of review; on anxious scrutiny the NRCPO's findings on credibility, lack of real risk, and viability of internal relocation (including access to medication) were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair, or irrational, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
16 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 321
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1425/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the court was satisfied on the material before it that the grounds advanced were arguable and the proposed review had a real prospect of success; the court did not determine the merits of the underlying Board decision.
15 Nov 2021

RE DHAN BAHADUR SHREES THAPA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1713
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV377/2021

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's refusal of leave because the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and unarguable, the Board's factual findings (including credibility, state protection and internal relocation) were within its fact‑finding province and were not irrational or legally erroneous, and there was no procedural unfairness or realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
18 Jun 2020

RE KASIRAH

Citation

[2020] HKCA 468
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP268/2019

Extension of time to appeal was refused because there was a substantial unexplained delay of 13 months and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success: the judge's decision refusing leave showed no error of law, no procedural unfairness and met the applicable enhanced Wednesbury standard, so granting an extension would be futile.
6 Jul 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL633/2017

Leave refused because the adjudicator's credibility findings had a rational basis, the applicant's grounds lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
3 Jul 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1408
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL639/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the TCAB's adverse credibility findings were rationally based and supported by detailed reasons, there was no demonstrated error of law or procedural unfairness, and the substantive decision did not meet the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness; consequently the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable.
20 Mar 2018

GOROSPE MARY ANGELINE O v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 459
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL630/2017

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator considered the evidence and COI, afforded the applicant opportunities to present her case, and made decisions that were open to them on the facts and eminently reasonable.
23 Feb 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL393/2017

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect of success: the adjudicator lawfully and carefully assessed the evidence under the correct legal tests, found available state protection and internal relocation viable, identified no Convention reason for persecution, found no minimum level of severity for CIDTP/torture, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law (including no miscarriage from lack of legal representation or translation).
15 Dec 2017

SUCHA SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUCHA SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL452/2017

Leave refused because applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the adjudicator; duty lawyer refusal did not amount to miscarriage of justice; translation/language issues caused no prejudice; adjudicator's substantive findings on torture, BOR2, BOR3 and persecution were legally sound and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success.