Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture (part viic immigration ordinance)

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1960
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2262/2020

The applicant failed to particularise any reasonably arguable ground of procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO decision; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its province and not vitiated by public law error, so there was no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1334/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse findings on absence of serious risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were factually supported and within the Board's fact-finding discretion; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1682/2020

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on their proposed judicial review; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that the claimed risks were unsubstantiated were within its remit and not susceptible to supervisory interference.
27 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1301/2025

The applicant’s grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board’s findings on lack of imminent risk, viability of internal relocation and availability of state protection were supported by evidence and COI, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review, therefore leave is refused.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings of inconsistency, lack of credibility and absence of evidential basis for the alleged risks were open to the Board and there was no established error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its decision; state protection and internal relocation findings were sustainable.
16 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 756
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL53/2017

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the challenges were largely bare assertions or irrelevant to the Board's findings, and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decisions which affirmed that the claims were unsubstantiated, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable.
15 Dec 2025

KHAN JAMSHAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5320
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1466/2020

The court refused leave because the NRCPO's affirmation of the Director's decision was within lawful bounds: the applicant's core allegations had been rejected in earlier proceedings (USM 2668), no new materially probative evidence was produced, the decision to proceed without an oral hearing was justified, and no reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success was established, making leave futile.
2 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5617
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1166/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be legally vulnerable, and the court must defer to the Board's fact-finding absent demonstrable legal error.
13 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1647/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by the evidence, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Board reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available; therefore leave is refused.
23 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4287
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL124/2025

Leave 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 were within its fact-finding remit, the applicant disavowed key grounds as not being his instructions rendering them insignificant, and he therefore had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.