Din Shamas v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 704/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 704 of 2020

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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 20 April 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 14 April 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”).  A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by in following hyperlink[1].

2.The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 13 June 2018.  I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party.

3.In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.  In the oral hearing of this leave application, he did not advance any argument in support of the application and merely said that he wished the case to be “checked again”.

4.The TCAB had conducted an oral hearing for the Applicant’s appeal/petition.  It came to the view that on the credible evidence before the TCAB, the Applicant has no real risk of facing persecution, torture or infringement of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.  It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of these matters lies with the Board.  In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

5.I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not detect any reviewable ground.  The leave application is thus dismissed.

Dated the 7^th day of July 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