Case Document

100%

HCAL 3819/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3819 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Jabbar Abdul	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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

1. The Form 86 is amended on the Court’s own motion; and

2. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observation for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 23 December 2019 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 13 December 2019 (the “TCAB Decision”), which confirmed the decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 22 August 2018 refusing his non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB and the DOI as proposed respondents and named TCAB as an interested party as well.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as an interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same.

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by people of an opposing political affiliation if he is returned. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.

Discussion

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision‑makers. This court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anr (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.In his affirmation filed in support of the Form 86, the Applicant only stated his wish to apply for judicial review of the TCAB Decision and did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the same.

7.At the hearing, he simply reiterated the factual basis of his claim.

8.As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, all the available evidence was placed before the TCAB [8-43] and the TCAB after careful consideration of the same came to the conclusion that the Applicant failed to establish his allegations [44-73].

9.The TCAB further analysed each of the four applicable grounds under the USM, identifying in each instance the correct legal principles to apply, and came to the conclusion that none of them was made out [75-93].

10.As such, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

11.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 13^th day of May 2025.

(Allen LEE)
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 Applicants: 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 13/5/2025 Jabbar Abdul 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 13/5/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13243/18/9/4/P2600 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2653/18 (Formerly RBCZ 11959/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)