Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture risk (part viic)

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

VU XUAN MAT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1523
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL945/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant admitted relying on the same facts and grounds as his previous claim and failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO; the Director lawfully found the subsequent claim did not have a realistic prospect of success and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
1 Apr 2026

BUI THI THAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1690
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1651/2021

The immigration officer reasonably concluded there was no significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success; absence of a hearing did not render the procedure unfair because no specific issues requiring clarification were identified, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
2 Dec 2025

PHAM VAN THAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL661/2021

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his prior determination and, given unchallenged prior findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, the proposed subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and leave is refused.
18 Nov 2025

TRAN MINH SAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5575
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL638/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board lawfully and rationally assessed credibility, found risk to be low and localized, accepted availability of state protection and internal relocation, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
30 Oct 2025

STANLEY ENYIOHA CHIDUBEM GOODLUCK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2060/2020

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because he did not establish any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings that ill‑treatment was highly unlikely, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were not susceptible to supervisory intervention, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
24 Oct 2025

TARIQ KAMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4915
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1901/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the risk was localized and that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful and rational, and judicial review is not a vehicle to re-hear merits of the non-refoulement claim; additionally the Applicant subsequently affirmed it was safe to return to Pakistan.
22 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4874
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1071/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk on return was low and that internal relocation was viable were within the Board's province, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was established.
29 Aug 2025

TAJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL12/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the findings that the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that lack of counsel did not render the process unfair, meant there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
12 May 2025

HOSSAIN MOHAMMED MONIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL293/2020

The Board conducted a proper fact-finding hearing, gave detailed reasons addressing discrepancies and credibility, applied correct legal principles and standards, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant therefore failed to show a reasonably arguable case and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
12 Aug 2024

ANILA PURWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2091
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL886/2024

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed four weeks out of time without any satisfactory explanation for the delay, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, there was no prospect of success on the merits given credibility findings and availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia.