Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture (immigration ordinance part viic)

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2067
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1413/2025

Extension of time was refused because the application was filed more than seven months late and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on the merits or any legal error in the Board's findings (credibility, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation); accordingly there was no good reason to extend time and leave was refused.
17 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1602/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on internal relocation and state protection were within its fact-finding remit and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence.
11 Mar 2026

NINH THI LIEN PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1372
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1497/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by identified discrepancies and lack of supporting evidence; there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of severe harm; state protection and internal relocation were found viable; no procedural unfairness was established. Therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 653
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1239/2025

The applicant's challenges were bare allegations unsupported by evidence and did not identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings (including findings on torture, BOR risks, state protection and internal relocation); accordingly he had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Dec 2025

IGWE KELVIN CHUKWUMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6171
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1498/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse findings on credibility, evidence, risk, state protection and internal relocation were within the primary fact-finding remit and not vitiated by procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality, and any narrower treatment of BOR2 would not have altered the outcome.
17 Dec 2025

DUONG THI THANH THUY AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5928
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1730/2020

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or identifiable legal error in the Board's findings; the Board had considered child-specific issues (including in A4's appeal) and state protection/internal relocation findings were supported by evidence; absence of separate legal representation for minors did not render the Board's decisions unlawful; procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the minors' applications.
29 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 855
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL427/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Adjudicator conducted a lawful and fair rehearing under the USM, properly applied legal tests and s37ZT for late BOR2 material, and there was no evidence of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
5 Sept 2019

RASHEED MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2188
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1719/2018

Leave was refused because (1) as a matter of statutory and appellate authority the Director's decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued (Re: Moshsin Ali), and (2) the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies and the applicant did not establish procedural unfairness or lack of assistance.
13 Jun 2019

ARA MOST ANJUMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1070
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL527/2018

Leave was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to give any or sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant's appeal; the Board dismissed the appeal on inability to assess credibility without explaining why the documentary materials could not support credibility or why no analysis on the basis that the claim was plausible was undertaken, creating an arguable ground for judicial review in line with Re Hidayah.
30 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL961/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error by the Adjudicator or Director; the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing, gave the applicant adequate opportunity, made open and reasonable findings on credibility and evidence, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.