Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Cruel inhuman or degrading treatment (cidtp)

  • 10 May 2023

    VALLES JULIE ANN CARANTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 1165
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL779/2019

    Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success or any error of law or procedural unfairness by the Board; the Board properly refused extension of time given the applicant's failure to notify change of address and the appeal was devoid of merit in light of prior findings rejecting BOR 3/torture and identifying available state protection and internal relocation; the Board's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Cruel inhuman or degrading treatment (cidtp)
    • Right to life (bor 2)
    • Extension of time/limitation
    • Judicial review leave

  • 4 Nov 2021

    BRAVO ROLDAN GUISINGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 3212
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL268/2019

    Leave was refused because the Board’s adverse credibility findings and risk assessments were supported by the evidence and there were no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Cruel inhuman or degrading treatment (cidtp)
    • Article 2 bor (right to life)
    • Article 3 bor
    • Refugee persecution

  • 19 Sept 2019

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

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2333
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1146/2018

    The applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on substantive or procedural grounds: the Board permissibly found domestic violence lacked state involvement and state protection was available, the applicant's procedural complaints were contradicted or unsupported by evidence, and relevant statutory and case law principles do not require a different outcome; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Cruel inhuman or degrading treatment (cidtp)
    • Judicial review
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Procedural fairness

  • 16 Sept 2019

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

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2219
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1630/2018

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director's decision was not susceptible to review once an appeal to the Board was pursued; the applicant was out of time for the Board's first decision but time was extended; on the merits the Board accepted the applicant's facts but reasonably concluded there was no state involvement or risk attracting protection under torture/CIDTP or refugee grounds and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Cruel inhuman or degrading treatment (cidtp)
    • Article 2 bor (right to life)
    • Refugee convention/persecution
    • Extension of time

  • 11 Jul 2017

    IL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

    Citation
    IL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL238/2015

    Extension of time refused because Applicant failed to show due diligence or good reasons for the near four-month delay beyond the statutory three-month limit (legal aid processing, loss of documents and solicitor nomination were not sufficient); substantive grounds had no realistic prospect of success because the Adjudicator did not err in law or procedure, his credibility findings were reasonable and the claims under torture, BOR3 and persecution were unsupported; granting out-of-time leave would prejudice public administration and effective immigration control.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Cruel inhuman or degrading treatment (cidtp)
    • Persecution
    • Judicial review - leave
    • Extension of time