Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to life (article 2 hkbor)

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2559
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1484/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that creditors lacked intent to kill or torture, that state protection in India was available and that internal relocation was viable were matters of fact within the Board's province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
13 May 2026

SOLLANO MARILOU TAURO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2688
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1666/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no specific or arguable legal ground; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were within its fact‑finding remit and not shown to be irrational, procedurally unfair or legally erroneous, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
13 May 2026

MOHAMED BASEER ABDUL KALK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2382
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1464/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's findings, did not show a realistic prospect of success on review given the Board's factual findings that state protection was available and internal relocation viable, and the supervisory court will not overturn the Board's fact-finding absent error of law or irrationality.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2691
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1560/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings on the absence of substantive evidence, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within the Board's fact-finding province and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL224/2026

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were permissible and determinative, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2474
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL183/2026

The applicant lacked a realistic prospect of success on judicial review because he failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision. The Board's adverse credibility findings, limited weight given to hearsay, and conclusions that internal relocation and state protection in Indonesia were viable meant the claim was properly dismissed; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2226
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL146/2026

The applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the reconstituted Board conducted a comprehensive and lawful assessment, its adverse credibility findings and rejection of medical and vulnerability claims were supported by the evidence, and supervisory review does not permit the court to substitute its own factual findings for those of the Board; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1118/2025

Applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings on state protection, right to life, severity of mistreatment and internal relocation; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1910/2025

The application for leave failed because the applicant did not identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility finding was sustainable and, even if the applicant's evidence were accepted, the Board correctly concluded there was no established risk of torture or violation of rights because the creditor lacked intent to inflict serious harm and internal relocation was viable; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1628
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1442/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully rejected the applicant's core evidence, and even accepting alleged facts internal relocation was viable; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown and the court cannot grant the applicant's request to speak to the adjudicator.