Ali Qasim v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 3692/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3692 of 2019

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 the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

1.  Form 86 be amended as follows:- the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 11 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”). 

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

3.The Applicant had requested an oral hearing for the application.  The hearing took place on 6 March 2025 and the Applicant attended the hearing in person. 

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[1] 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, the Applicant has not provided any grounds in support of the Leave Application.  In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant alleged that the Board’s Decision is “Wednesbury unreasonable”.  The Applicant however has not provided any particulars on why he claimed the Board’s Decision to be unreasonable. 

7.At the hearing held on 6 March 2015, the Applicant maintained that his life will be in danger if he is to return to his country.  The Applicant further claimed that he has nothing in Pakistan and his future is in Hong Kong.  He told the Court that he has got married in Hong Kong and he will not be safe in any city in Pakistan.  The Applicant had however failed to make any submissions as to why he considered the Board’s Decision to be flawed.

8.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 particularize, let alone 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.  I also agree with the Board’s observation that the Applicant’s conduct is consistent with someone who came to Hong Kong to seek employment rather than seeking protection (see paragraphs 16 to 22 of the Board’s Decision).  Having considered the Board’s Decision carefully, I find that it 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.

9.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, as well as the submissions made by the Applicant at the hearing.    

Conclusion

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

Dated the 11^th day of April 2025.

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

Form CALL-1