Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to life (hkbor article 2)

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1632/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by absence of evidence and were not vitiated by error of law or procedural unfairness, and the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for delay.
15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1520/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that evidence was inconsistent, and that risk was localized with viable internal relocation were lawful and not irrational; no arguable ground of public law error or procedural unfairness was shown.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2384
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1473/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board properly considered the evidence, made findings that risks were unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1365
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1449/2025

Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's assessment of evidence on torture, CIDTP, Article 2 HKBOR or persecution and therefore has no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2290
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1402/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were within the Board’s fact-finding province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1678/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (that the applicant's motive was to remain in Hong Kong for employment and that state protection in Indonesia was available) were within the Board's fact-finding province and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2189
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1618/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no real risk of serious or fatal harm were not shown to be infected by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the court's role is supervisory and it will not re‑evaluate primary fact finding.
29 Apr 2026

LE THI HONG PHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant relied on the same reasons as in the previous claim, failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO, produced only bare assertions without supporting evidence, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly the court dismissed the leave application and made a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
22 Apr 2026

BUI TIEN HOAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1985
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL250/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same grounds as his previously determined claim and failed to demonstrate the significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance; there was no realistic prospect of success, and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of the court process.
14 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2018
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1393/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground and could not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be legally flawed or procedurally unfair.