Le Huu Duc v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 3753/2019 [2025] HKCFI 1323 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3753 of 2019
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.By Form 86 filed on 17 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 13 December 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 on the court’s own motion. 3.The Applicant had requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 12 March 2025. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant on 5 February 2025 at the address provided by the Applicant on the Form. The said address was also confirmed by the Immigration Department to be the last known address of the Applicant on 4 February 2025. Attempts were made to contact and remind the Applicant of the hearing by phone on 10 March 2025 but in vain. The Applicant did not attend the hearing. On 20 March 2025, the Court received the return of the Notice of Hearing marked “no such person”. 4.Whilst it may be the case that the Applicant had not received the Notice of Hearing, as was held by the Court of Appeal in Karamjit Singh [2018] HKCA 460 (at §14) and Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2018] HKCA 439 (at §15), it is the Applicant’s duty to keep the Court informed of his means of contact. As the Applicant neglected his duty to inform the Court of his change of address, he has to bear the consequence. In the premises, I shall determine the Leave Application based on the documents filed in his absence. Background 5.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 6.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) 7.In the Form, the Applicant did not state any grounds in support of the Leave Application. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply repeated the basis of his claims (which was put forward before the Board). 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 demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The facts stated in the supporting Affirmation had been duly considered by the Board (paragraphs 8 to 16, 21 to 29, 50 to 53, 56 to 64 of the Board’s Decision). The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. 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. 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 11th 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 [1]https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003753_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |
Cases cited in this judgment