Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture and article 3 hkbor

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2025

RONY HOWLADAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1188
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1923/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that the risk was localized and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available were lawful and rational, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
13 Feb 2025

KHURELBAATAR NARANBAYAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1167/2017

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning and the assessed risk was localized with reasonable internal relocation alternatives, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
27 Aug 2024

NGUYEN VAN BAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL466/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the decisions were supported by evidence that the risk from the creditor was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
14 Nov 2023

SHOVE SHERPA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2927
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1244/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed risk, credibility and internal relocation and applied governing legal principles, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
19 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL768/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's well-reasoned adverse credibility findings and in the Director/Board assessment that the risk was localized and mitigable by state protection or internal relocation; judicial review cannot be used to re-hear factual assessments absent legal error.
10 Oct 2023

RAI SARASWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL518/2023

The Board and the Director conducted lawful and fair proceedings; the adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and detailed reasoning; absence of legal representation at the Board hearing and non-provision of a translation did not cause prejudice; reasonable internal relocation within India was available; no error of law or procedural unfairness was established and therefore there is no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review, so leave is refused.
19 Apr 2023

HUSSAIN KHALID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 551
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL955/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the risk was assessed as localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, credibility concerns remained unexplained, and judicial review is not a vehicle to rehear the factual risk assessment of primary decision-makers.
4 Apr 2023

CONDEZ JUDELYN SAMELLANO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 489
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL368/2019

Leave was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board acted procedurally unfairly by failing to separately and sufficiently consider child-specific matters relating to A2 and/or erred in concluding it was unnecessary to consider internal relocation for the Applicants; these arguable errors satisfy the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review.
6 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL882/2019

Leave was granted because the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable case that the Board (i) relied on speculation and unfounded assumptions in assessing credibility, (ii) failed to observe high standards of fairness by not probing adverse findings or allowing the applicant to respond, and (iii) failed to give sufficient reasons for its adverse credibility findings, thereby meeting the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review.
14 Apr 2022

NGUYEN VAN DUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1098
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL150/2019

Leave refused because the Applicant cannot show any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and its balanced reliance on COI were lawful and internal relocation to other parts of Vietnam was a reasonable alternative to refoulement.