Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unified screening mechanism (usm)

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

GONZALEZ ROALINA MARIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2951
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL174/2022

Leave refused because the application was filed more than three months after the Board's decision without any explanation such that no extension of time was warranted; on the merits the Board's Decision was lawfully reached with no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality—state protection was available and internal relocation was viable—so the claim had no realistic prospect of success.
20 May 2026

CHHETRI SABITRI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL623/2023

The applicant's request to withdraw was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the Board's Decision, after anxious scrutiny, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant was found not credible, her case lacked realistic prospects of success, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was not justified.
18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL746/2021

The leave application was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed and weighed the evidence, made fact findings open on the evidence (including that injuries were not of sufficient severity, the matter was a family dispute, state protection was available and internal relocation feasible), and the Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus the proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL779/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Board's decision contained no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual assessments were open on the evidence and the claim did not meet the legal thresholds for non-refoulement or torture under the USM, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2505
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1332/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds in Form 86 and did not make the required full and frank disclosure, and because the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to be tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
18 May 2026

ASHRAF USAMA, suing by her mother and next friend, YANUAR FARIDAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2773
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2156/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to plead clear grounds or disclose material facts, the Board's factual findings that state protection and internal relocation were available did not involve public law errors, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable or capable of success on judicial review.
13 May 2026

JAVED ZUBAIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1025/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success, and the Board's decision, upon anxious scrutiny, displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
7 May 2026

OBI NDUBUISI GEORGE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2107/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were not susceptible to judicial review absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Form 86 lacked clear grounds and full disclosure, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable.
7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL661/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law ground, failed to make the required clear and frank disclosure, and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings that past ill-treatment was minor and that state protection and internal relocation were available, such that the challenge had realistic prospects of success.
6 May 2026

NENGSIH-BT-UCA-RADUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1630/2024

The Leave Application is dismissed because it was filed out of time with no explanation and, on the merits, the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant had no reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.