Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture risk (cat)

Legal area

Court

9 Nov 2023

DO VAN DONG 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2857
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1516/2023

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the Appeal Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessments were factually supported and lawfully reached; the applicant failed to identify any specific legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury‑level unreasonableness in the decision, so there was no basis for judicial intervention.
21 Jul 2023

RE IRFAN AHMED

Citation

[2023] HKCA 882
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP382/2022

The summons for renewed extension of time was dismissed because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's decision disclosed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness, the applicant relied on new/unparticularised fact‑sensitive grounds (credibility) not raised below, and given the lack of prospect it would be futile to extend time despite the delay.
21 Sept 2020

IMRAN HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL946/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguably sustainable legal error or procedural unfairness: he had prior legal assistance at screening, an interpreter at the Board hearing, the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies and evidence, and both the Director and the Board reasonably found available state protection and internal relocation making non‑refoulement protection unnecessary.
10 Sept 2019

RE MOSTOFA MD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1000
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2019

Leave for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the Judge correctly applied the law, gave detailed reasons, found the Board/Adjudicator's conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, identified no legal error or procedural unfairness, and the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable grounds or prejudice warranting review.
18 Jun 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1575
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL636/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, had a legitimate basis for the adverse credibility finding (a major discrepancy), considered relevant COI, lawfully concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, and the decision was not Wednesbury-unreasonable nor infected by error of law or procedural unfairness; the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.
11 Jun 2019

JASKARN SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1399
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL164/2018

Leave was refused because on rigorous examination the Adjudicator conducted sufficient inquiry, afforded procedural fairness, gave reasons for disbelieving the applicant based on implausibilities and documentary irregularity, and the decision contained no error of law or irrationality such that judicial review could be justified.
2 Apr 2019

SUMON MIAH v. CHRISTIAN PATRICK CARNEY, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 864
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL794/2018

Leave refused because the Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's credibility findings and refusals were supported by the record, there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness and no Wednesbury unreasonableness in the decision.
12 Oct 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL316/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Board conducted lawful, fair and reasoned assessments of credibility and risk, found the evidence speculative and uncorroborated, and reasonably held that state protection and internal relocation in Indonesia were available, such that no legal error or procedural unfairness justified judicial review.
8 Aug 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1745
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL757/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator applied correct legal principles, conducted a fair rehearing, and lawfully rejected the applicant's claims on credibility and evidential grounds; no procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
24 Jul 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL716/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: TCAB applied correct legal principles, accepted the applicant's evidence, there was no procedural unfairness in deciding the appeal on the papers, no demonstrated error of law or disregard of COI, and the substantive decisions satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard so there was no realistic prospect of success.