Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of torture (immigration ordinance part viic)

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1615
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1652/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant admitted the Board's Decision was not wrong, the Board conducted a hearing and made findings that the claimed risks were unsubstantiated, the Director's Decision was superseded by the Board so the Director's decision could not be challenged once appeal pursued, and established authority holds that lack of free legal representation or continuous translation does not by itself amount to procedural unfairness; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
4 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL841/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any specific or arguable public law grounds or particulars in Form 86 or the supporting affirmation, and the Board's findings that the applicant's account lacked credibility and that internal relocation was viable were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; consequently the challenge had no realistic prospects of success.
8 Oct 2025

NGO VAN TOAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1785/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and fact assessments were within its exclusive evaluative domain and disclosed no reviewable public law error warranting leave.
15 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1965
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL240/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful and rational; and the Applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return to India, removing any prospect of success.
8 Apr 2025

RUMA LEMURA SIBAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL120/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board’s findings that there was no real and substantial risk, that the matter was a private dispute without state involvement, and that state protection and internal relocation were viable were within the Board’s fact‑finding remit and were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6 Dec 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3521
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1435/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to present any properly pleaded or reasonably arguable grounds; the Board's factual findings that the creditor's conduct did not meet required severity, that state protection was available and internal relocation was viable, were within the Board's province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the proposed review therefore lacked realistic prospects of success.
15 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2044
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1126/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the claimed risk was not substantial and that protection/internal relocation were available involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality.
10 Oct 2022

WEDDAWALA KANKANAMLAGE SUMANAWATHIE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1274
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2022

Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable ground to show the Judge erred in refusing leave; the Judge correctly found no error of law or procedural unfairness and that the Board's credibility and factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
7 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 962
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL570/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, afforded the applicant opportunity to expand his case, applied correct legal tests and reached conclusions open to him on the evidence, so there was no basis for judicial intervention.
16 Jan 2020

BHUKAL SUKHCHAIN SINGH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL716/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board, provided no sufficient particulars or credible oral evidence, and the risk assessment (including availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation) was a matter properly for the primary decision-makers and was not irrational or unlawful.