Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk to life (article 2 hkbor)

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2599
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1440/2022

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any properly pleaded grounds in Form 86, did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision, and the proposed challenge lacked realistic prospects of success given the Board’s lawful and fair application of the law and its factual findings regarding severity and internal relocation.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2065
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1428/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Board's factual findings (including that the creditor had never inflicted physical harm and that inability to repay a loan is not a Refugee Convention reason) were unchallenged and there was no demonstration of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so no realistic prospect of success was shown.
25 Mar 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1275/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were within its fact-finding discretion and disclosed no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
17 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2521
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL984/2019

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 on past ill-treatment, availability of state protection and internal relocation were supported by evidence and did not disclose any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
3 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL956/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish any arguable ground of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board held an oral hearing, the applicant had opportunity to make submissions, the Board's adverse credibility and evidential findings were supported by inconsistencies and lack of documentation and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant therefore had no realistic prospect of success.
29 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1982
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL593/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was both time-barred and without realistic prospects of success: the Board's findings on credibility, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the Director's decision was superseded by the Board's Decision.
8 Jun 2018

ALI SAQIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL244/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because, on rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions rejecting the non-refoulement claim and therefore no prospect of success.
27 Apr 2018

MEHMOOD NASIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL904/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific legal error or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Torture Claims Appeal Board; the applicant had opportunities to present his case including oral hearings and earlier legal representation before the Director; the Director and the Board reasonably assessed COI, state protection and internal relocation; and there was no prospect of success on the intended grounds of challenge.