Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture convention

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5915
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL192/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any grounds in Form 86, advanced no arguable errors of law against the Board's factual findings, and could not justify a substantial delay (approximately 16 months) in filing; in the absence of good reason and given lack of merits the court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the leave application.
10 Dec 2025

ABIDEEN MALIK ZAIN UL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5368
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1771/2020

The Board lawfully assessed credibility, considered objective country information, state protection and internal relocation, and made determinations within its jurisdiction; no public law error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown and the Applicant's case was not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review must be refused.
1 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3074
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL805/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision: the Board's adverse credibility findings (fabrication and inconsistencies) and its assessment that any discrimination was low-level meant the applicant had no reasonably arguable prospect of success.
14 Apr 2025

ROKA ROSHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL82/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board lawfully and fairly assessed credibility and evidence, made permissible findings of fact, and its decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard; new allegations not previously before the Board could not justify granting leave.
2 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 151
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2064/2024

The Board correctly applied governing legal principles, made factual findings within its exclusive remit that there was adequate state protection and feasible internal relocation and no real risk of torture or deprivation of life, and the Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
1 Feb 2024

LUONG THI CHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2025/2023

The Director did not err in concluding there was no significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO because the applicant relied on the same unsubstantiated facts previously rejected; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused; an RPO is justified to prevent abuse of process.
11 May 2023

BIPLOB S M alias BIPLOBE alias MD RAJON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL68/2023

The leave application was refused because the claimant offered an uncredible and unexplained substantial delay and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings that the claimed risks were not well-founded, that adequate state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the persecution claim fell outside Convention reasons were supported by credible material and were neither legally erroneous nor irrational.
9 Nov 2022

ISTAMAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3413
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL957/2022

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim under s37ZO was lawful and rational: the applicant's new material was unverified hearsay and did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no public law error was shown and therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused; an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process given the repeated re-litigation on the same facts.
16 Aug 2022

RE SHERPA CHHIRI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2387
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1042/2019

Extension of time to file the appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable or realistic prospect of success on the merits of the intended appeal; the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence of a well-founded fear were decisive and not shown to be irrational.
27 May 2022

HARPREET KAUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 731
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV587/2021

The leave application was rightly refused because the applicant failed to present any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.