Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture risk (part viic, immigration ordinance)

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

RENI WIDIASTUTIK AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1536/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused for the 1st Applicant because no reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified in the Board’s assessment of her claim; leave was granted for the 2nd Applicant because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to give separate and adequate consideration to the child’s claim, including failure to make findings on her nationality/right to return and failure to consider her racially mixed parentage in assessing persecution risk, thereby meeting the leave threshold.
10 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5802
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1181/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the claim was unsubstantiated, that there was no evidence of intent to harm, no state involvement, that state protection existed and internal relocation was viable were within the Board's fact-finding province and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention.
31 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1104/2020

Leave was granted because the court concluded the Applicant’s Grounds (2)–(4) were reasonably arguable: the Board arguably failed to consider imputed political opinion and relevant Sri Lanka COI/GJ guidance and made potentially irrational factual conclusions and inadequate reasons, thereby meeting the threshold for leave under Po Fun Chan.
10 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1314
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1951/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was inordinate and unexplained delayed (almost four months), the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions which on anxious scrutiny disclosed none, and the Applicant subsequently affirmed she no longer faced obstacles to return; there was no prospect of success.
3 Sept 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2248
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL583/2022

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were bare and lacked particulars, the Director and Board lawfully assessed credibility and risk, found no real risk of serious harm and identified state protection and reasonable internal relocation; no legal error or procedural unfairness was established and judicial review is not a rehearing of the primary decision-makers' factual assessments.
18 Aug 2023

MORI DELLIA SIGAYLI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2138
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL284/2019

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision‑makers reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no arguable basis for non‑refoulement relief.
14 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL394/2021

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was justified because the applicant made an almost two-month inordinate delay without explanation, the intended judicial review had no reasonably arguable merits as the Board's and Director's decisions disclosed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality (their findings on credibility, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were supported by evidence and COI), and the applicant later confirmed she no longer sought protection; therefore leave was refused and time not extended.
18 Sept 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL548/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that internal relocation was reasonable were supported by reasons and country information, and judicial review is not a forum to re‑assess those factual evaluations.
7 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1779/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Board and had no reasonable prospect of success: the Director's and Board's findings that risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were within their evaluative province and the applicant did not establish BOR 2 or BOR 3 risk.
18 Nov 2019

IDREES SOHAIL AND OTHERS v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL555/2017

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings following oral evidence were entitled to deference and the Director and Board lawfully concluded the risk was low and internal relocation was available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.