Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of torture/cidtp

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

ANSARI MOHAMMAD GHULAM MOHIUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2639/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant advanced bare assertions without evidence, the Board validly rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable after highlighting unrectified contradictions, concluded there was no objective risk or intent to persecute and that internal relocation and state protection were viable, and the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success on arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness.
30 Dec 2025

DAO THI PHUONG LIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1210/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without evidence, she failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success, and the Board's factual findings (creditors intended only repayment pressure; no real risk; internal relocation viable; state protection available) did not disclose any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention.
9 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5927
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2083/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review 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, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were within the Board's fact-finding province and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
2 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2219/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground and the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings that the claim was unsubstantiated were not shown to be legally irrational or procedurally unfair, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
24 Nov 2025

TRAN THI PHONG 又名 TRAN THI PHUONG 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5408
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2076/2020

The application for leave was refused because the Appeal Board's factual findings and conclusion that state protection and internal relocation reduced any risk were not shown to involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant failed to advance specific or arguable legal grounds challenging the Board's decision, so there was no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.
22 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4824
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1995/2025

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed more than four months late without good reason, and he failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was insufficient evidence to establish risks fell squarely within the Board's fact‑finding remit and did not disclose error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial interference.
26 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4231
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1258/2020

Leave was granted because the Board erred in law by failing to consider the child's claim and child-specific vulnerability and by not addressing whether the minor had legal representation; the mother's and child's claims are closely connected and should be considered together. The court exercised discretion to grant leave despite delay because the application has merits.
16 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3968
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL518/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that there was no real risk of harm, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without evidential support.
11 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL238/2020

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects: the Board correctly applied the law and evidential standards, found only low‑intensity past ill‑treatment by a private actor, no evidence of state involvement or acquiescence, no nexus to a protected ground, viable internal relocation, and no procedural unfairness or legal error warranting judicial intervention.
26 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2117
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL288/2020

Leave was granted because the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the Board and Director arguably failed to investigate and determine the applicant's claimed dual nationality, and arguably failed to properly assess risk, country of origin information, state protection and internal relocation, thereby raising arguable public law errors sufficient to meet the leave threshold under Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung.