Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture claims

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

NIA DANIATI BT HAMDAN USMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1075/2022

The Board's decision contained adequate reasons, applied the correct legal tests, considered the evidence and country of origin information, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect of success and was dismissed.
20 May 2026

SAFITRI KURNIA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2814
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1324/2025

The summons for extension of time is dismissed because the applicant provided unsatisfactory explanations for the delay, had one day available to lodge the appeal, failed to identify any arguable grounds for the intended appeal or judicial review, and therefore did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success which is the crucial requirement for granting an extension.
20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1148/2022

The Applicant voluntarily applied to withdraw the leave application, there were no outstanding matters, and authorities permit dismissal on withdrawal; accordingly the court granted leave to withdraw and dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review (citing Re Manik).
19 May 2026

RE HOANG THI THAM

Citation

[2026] HKCA 972
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant's allegations were bare and lacked particulars showing a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's factual findings about risk and state protection were open to it and did not reveal error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting intervention.
19 May 2026

RE A.N.M. RAKIBUL HASSAN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 973
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2026

The Judge did not err in refusing leave because the applicant advanced only bare assertions without particulars or evidence of legal error or procedural impropriety in the Board's decision; credibility, risk and protection findings were open to the Board and the Director's decision cannot be judicially reviewed after appeal to the Board, therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.
19 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2023

Dismissal of the leave application and adjournment application was required because there was no Board decision of 22 October 2021 to review (the applicant had appealed then unequivocally withdrawn the appeal and the Board allowed the withdrawal), the TCAB appeal procedure was the suitable alternative remedy which the applicant had used and abandoned, and the leave application was filed after substantial unexplained delay and constituted an abuse of process; the adjournment application lacked identified relevant evidence and was therefore refused.
18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2810
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL632/2022

The applicant's withdrawal was an informed and conscious decision made of his own free will with full understanding of the consequences, therefore the Court allowed the withdrawal of the leave application.
15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1950/2025

The court allowed the withdrawal because it was satisfied on the applicant's affirmation that the withdrawal was voluntary, that she understood the finality of the Board's decision and the risk of refoulement, and that she wished to return to her home country; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was withdrawn.
15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2759
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL736/2022

Extension of time to file the leave application and the leave application itself were refused because the application was over four years late, the applicant provided no explanation, failed to attend the scheduled hearing, and established legal principles and authorities required refusal of extension and leave.
14 May 2026

RE CHANTHARASIRI SINGHA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 975
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV133/2025

The Judge was plainly wrong in law for failing to consider that the Board had not considered the merits when refusing late filing under s37ZT; the Court may intervene and exercise the discretion afresh, but upon a fresh multifactorial exercise the applicant's substantial unexplained delay (over 1 year 10 months) and the need for a disciplined approach to public law time limits justified refusal of leave to apply for judicial review despite arguable merits.