Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture and cidtp

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

KALIMUTHU PAZHANICHAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1054/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable grounds for judicial review; the Board conducted a proper hearing, made credibility and risk findings within its fact‑finding remit, correctly applied legal tests under the USM, and the decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention.
13 May 2026

DE LEON JESSICA ESTRADA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2378
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1478/2025

The application for extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed five days late and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's fact-based findings that the claim was unsubstantiated and internal relocation and state protection were viable; therefore extension of time was not justified under the governing authorities including AW and Kartini.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2379
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL278/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by the record (unsubstantiated allegations, hearsay, no state involvement, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation), so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
13 May 2026

CHAUHAN KAUSHAL KISHOR PRASAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2668
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL596/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Director properly applied section 37ZO, concluding there had been no significant change of circumstances and the subsequent claim merely re‑hashed previously rejected grounds; given repeated attempts and absence at the show‑cause hearing, the Court was satisfied an RPO was necessary to prevent further abuse of process and to protect the Court's functions.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2910/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board was entitled to take a different view based on the evidence and its findings were within its fact-finding remit.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2469
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL373/2026

The Board correctly applied s.37ZT and lawfully exercised its discretion to refuse late filing because the applicant failed to show he exercised all due diligence and failed to demonstrate circumstances beyond his control; consequently the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Apr 2026

MAZUMDER MOHAMMAD JOYAL RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1572/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success on judicial review: the Board's decision adhered to public law standards, the applicant's procedural complaint was unfounded, the submitted document did not establish BNP membership, and the Board reasonably found state protection and internal relocation viable.
27 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2070
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1406/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection was available.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL430/2026

The application for leave was refused and time to bring the application was not extended because the application was excessively late and the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and internal relocation conclusion were matters within its fact‑finding province and were not irrational, unlawful or procedurally unfair such as to justify judicial intervention.
15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1964
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1616/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of law; the Board's findings were supported by the evidence, fell within the Board's fact-finding remit and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting review.