Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture (article 3 cat)

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2173/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Board's Decision showed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence, the medical documentation did not alter the Board's assessment, and in any event the applicant failed to establish the required risk under BOR2, BOR3 or Persecution Risk; the proposed judicial review has no realistic prospect of success.
20 Sept 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2382
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL73/2019

Leave refused because the Board correctly applied the law and principles under the USM, made credible and permissible findings of fact about risk, state protection and internal relocation, and the Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; applicants lacked a realistic prospect of success.
11 Apr 2023

REHMAN WAJID UR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 353
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV294/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; credibility and risk findings are prima facie for the Board and there was evidence of available state protection and viable internal relocation, and the applicant had not shown denial of effective representation or interpretation that rendered the process unfair.
16 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2271/2020

Leave refused because the Board lawfully considered relevant and more up-to-date COI, made rational credibility and state protection findings within its fact-finding discretion, the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of establishing personal risk of torture or other breach of rights, and no procedural unfairness or error of law was demonstrated.
15 Jul 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2054
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL66/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Board lawfully considered credible COI, balanced conflicting material, reached fact findings within its province, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonable decision to justify judicial intervention.
4 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1855/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the Board and Director's risk assessments and factual findings (low risk, availability of state protection, viability of internal relocation) lay within their evaluative jurisdiction and did not disclose procedural unfairness or legal error sufficient to warrant judicial review.
9 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL219/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator lawfully and fairly considered the evidence and COI, applied correct legal principles, reached conclusions open to him on the facts (including availability of internal relocation and lack of personal link to Boko Haram), and there was no arguable error of law or procedure and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
10 Aug 2018

RE ZUMURD HUSSAIN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 480
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV125/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground for judicial review: he had ample opportunity to present his case before the Director and at the Board rehearing, the Board's adverse credibility findings were unchallenged and not shown to be erroneous, there was no evidential basis for a substantial risk of torture or ill-treatment, and the impugned decisions satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
26 Sept 2014

RE MI

Citation

RE MI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV69/2014

The Court allowed the appeal because the judge erred in finding that the Director and Adjudicator had given any or sufficient consideration to the extended concept of State acquiescence and to country materials; the applicant demonstrated reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success; the matter was remitted for proper consideration with adequate country information and involvement of the applicant, and extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review were granted.