Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 153/2020

[2025] HKCFI 1449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 153 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ike Izunna Joel	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 the documents only; or

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

The Leave Application be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By prescribed Form 86 filed on 15 January 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 22 November 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 25 June 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision is set out in the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000153_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his hostile creditor in relation to a business loan, which the applicant was unable to repay. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.Pursuant to the applicant’s request for a hearing, this court held a hearing on 26 March 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and then sent to his updated address.

Discussion

4.The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. However, the applicant has identified no such grounds, and he merely stated in his supporting affirmation that he wished to appeal against the Board’s Decision and the Director’s Decision. At the hearing, this court had asked him whether he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. The applicant initially said that he had nothing to say. After the court’s probing, the applicant then stated that the threat was still serious. If he were re-fouled, his life would be in danger. He further stated that it was not reasonable for the Board to reject his application.

6.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality. In the present case, it is plain that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence or put forward any grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision. The Board’s findings of the applicant’s lack of credibility on all the salient aspects of his evidence including the alleged business loan, and of the reasonable availability of state protection and internal relocation, are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with subject to there being any public law errors.

7.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the decision of the Board, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a very high standard of fairness. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, nor were such grounds identified in the Form 86. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[3].

Order

8.The Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 29^th day of April 2025

( Alfred Chan )
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 29/4/2025 Ike Izunna Joel 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 29/4/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16059/19/7/25/NI304 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 315/19 (formerly as RBCZ 66/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)