Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture and ill-treatment

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1136
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL50/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success: the Board had lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence and COI, made findings on credibility and risk which were not irrational or procedurally unfair, and identified adequate state protection and internal relocation; the Applicant's assertions about changed country conditions were bare and insufficient to alter that conclusion.
25 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1123
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL477/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board correctly applied the law, accepted the Applicant's evidence where credible, made reasonable factual findings that the assault caused only minor injury, found no state involvement or BOR 2 risk, and reasonably concluded internal relocation was viable and COI cited were reliable, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
7 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1077/2020

Applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the TCAB decision; in absence of such defects the court will not substitute its own factual conclusions and thus dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review.
9 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2033/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Director and the Board carried out lawful and fair evaluations, the applicant's complaints about lack of representation, language assistance and absence of a further oral hearing were not reasonably arguable, BOR 2 was not engaged on the facts, internal relocation and state protection were reasonable, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was identified.
8 Sept 2025

ANTONYTHASAN SAJEETH PIRASANTH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3953
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1625/2020

The court refused to extend time because the applicant offered no explanation for a 20‑day delay and his intended challenge lacked reasonably arguable merits; accordingly there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.
26 Aug 2025

NGUYEN, THI THAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL599/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of review; the TCAB/NRCPO's assessment of credibility, risk and internal relocation fell within its primary fact-finding role and did not disclose procedural unfairness, error of law or Wednesbury irrationality; the two-tier system precludes direct challenge to the Director's decision in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
22 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL297/2023

Leave was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board's decision was legally wrong and tainted by procedural unfairness for failing to investigate or make findings about the applicant's scars and for not considering medical evidence or exercising s.37ZC where appropriate, such failures meeting the threshold for judicial review leave.
8 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1038/2020

Despite an inordinate delay of approximately nine months, leave was granted and time extended because the Applicant demonstrated a realistically arguable and meritorious case: the Board accepted that the Applicant suffered severe ill-treatment but failed to analyze or give reasons regarding state acquiescence and availability of state protection and thus failed to adequately address whether BOR2/BOR3 or persecution grounds were engaged; those omissions rendered the Board's conclusions susceptible to review as legally erroneous or irrational.
6 Aug 2025

MIA RAJON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3485
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1222/2025

The leave application was dismissed and extension of time refused because the applicant filed out of time (approximately ten months after the Board's decision), offered no adequate justification on paper, and the intended challenge to the Board lacked substantive merit; the Director's decision was not reviewable as it was superseded by the Board's decision; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Board's reasoning, and the claim did not meet the threshold of a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success.
16 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2965
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL785/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal errors, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; courts defer to TCAB's factual and credibility assessments absent such errors and will not re-open the case on its merits.