Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture (cat)

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6388
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1363/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse findings on credibility, plausibility and risk of harm fell within the decision-maker's primary fact‑finding role and showed no procedural unfairness, legal error or irrationality under the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
9 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5884
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1195/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: his grounds were unsupported bare assertions; the Board conducted an oral hearing, made credibility and factual findings within its fact-finding remit, accepted evidence showing risk was unsubstantiated and internal relocation viable, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown.
17 Nov 2025

MOUNGUN ATICHADA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5438
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1730/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacking necessary particulars such that they were not reasonably arguable, and because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably found the risk to be localized, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
16 Sept 2025

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL372/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds, relied on new evidence arising after the Board's decision which is not admissible at the leave stage, and the Board's decision contained detailed fact findings and legal analysis which displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; the applicant's credibility was further undermined by delay.
10 Sept 2025

SHAH MEHMOOD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4039
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL675/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were generic and unparticularised, the criticisms directed at the Director's decision were not open to review once appeal to TCAB/NRCPO had been pursued, and on rigorous anxious scrutiny there was no reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO decision that would justify leave.
28 Aug 2025

RE SURIMAH TARSODI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 727
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV453/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable, particularised ground showing the Judge or the Board committed errors of law, procedural unfairness or made irrational findings; the Board's adverse credibility and risk assessments were open to it and the minor's claim rested entirely on the rejected parental evidence and had been considered separately, so no basis existed to grant leave or to order reconsideration.
3 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2029
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL182/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable; the Board properly applied the law, fairly assessed credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation and made findings supported by the evidence, such that no public law ground for interference was established.
15 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 331
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1629/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed grossly out of time without explanation and, on merits, the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no real risk of torture, persecution or violation of BOR rights and that state protection/internal relocation were available involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore did not justify judicial intervention.
8 Aug 2023

RE ASAN BUN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 950
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP399/2022

Applicant's renewed application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed because he failed to satisfactorily explain the delay and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; the Board's decision contained no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality and applicant suffered no prejudice from lack of legal or language assistance, so extending time would be futile.
15 Apr 2021

RE KPS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 442
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP41/2020

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed because applicant failed to give any good reason for a 1 year 9 months delay and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success: the Director and Board had properly considered evidence and COI, applied relevant legal principles and made open findings free of errors of law or procedural unfairness, so extension would be futile.