Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 3769/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3769 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Abdallah Aboubacar Ali	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

consideration of documents only; or

consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent.

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 18 December 2019 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 29 November 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”)[1].

2.In the Form, the Applicant has named the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.

3.The Applicant had requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 13 March 2025. The Applicant however did not attend the hearing. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance. I also note from the records that attempts were made to remind the Applicant of the hearing on 11 March 2025 and 12 March 2025 by phone but in vain.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[2] for reference.

Discussion

5.The applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14)

6.In the Form and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not state any grounds in support of the Leave Application. The Applicant simply attached the Board’s Decision to his supporting Affirmation.

7.I have considered the Board’s Decision in details. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. In particular, the Board explained in details as to why it rejected the Applicant’s evidence (see paragraphs 23 to 24 of the Board’s Decision). The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

8.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23). Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me.

Conclusion

9.In the premises, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 7^th day of April 2025

	( Seline Sze )
	for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 07/04/2025 Abdallah Aboubacar Ali Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 07/04/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14432/18/11/275/NR24 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3534/18 (formerly RBCZ 13568/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] Although the Form did not specify the date of the decision in respect of which the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review, it is clear from the supporting Affirmation that the Applicant was referring to the Board’s Decision.

[2]https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003769_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

Cites 3 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Nupur Mst v. Director of Immigration