Ditta Allah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 3156/2019 [2025] HKCFI 3035 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3156 of 2019
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION 1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 21 October 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below. 2.The applicant asked for a hearing. He appeared before the Court on 6 June 2025. 3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party. The applicant 4.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 16 February 2016, the applicant was arrested, claiming that he entered Hong Kong illegally on the same day. In due course, he lodged a non-refoulement claim in Hong Kong. 5.The applicant’s claim was based on his fear of being harmed or killed by his enemies due to a family land dispute. 6.According to the applicant, there was a fight over the land of his deceased grandfather between his father and elder uncle. In an incident on a day in or about 4 to 5 months before the applicant came to Hong Kong, the two families had a fight over the land, which lasted for almost an hour. The applicant also stated that there were at least 8-9 times where his elder uncle hired some guys to beat him up. Details of his claim are set out at paragraph 7 of the Notice of Decision dated 18 July 2018 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”). The Director’s Decision 7.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
8.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director assessed the applicant’s claim and dismissed his claim. In summary, the Director found that the claimed level of risk of being harmed or killed was assessed to be low; that the low intensity of past ill-treatment indicated that the applicant would not have a real chance of facing a substantial future risk of harm; that current ownership of the applicant’s father’s land was still under the name of his grandfather [12-13]; that state protection was available [14-21]; and that internal relocation alternatives were available and reasonable [22-25]. The Board’s Decision 9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 2 September 2019, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which the applicant appeared in person, assisted by an interpreter qualified in Punjabi and English [6]. 10.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant did not have any, or any reliable evidence to show that the elder uncle or other enemies would harm or kill him if he were to return to Pakistan nor that he faces risk, experienced physical suffering of the requisite severity, or that the state of Pakistan was unwilling to help the applicant for a Convention reason [40-44]. 11.In any event, having considered the Country of Origin Information, it found that state protection was available [57-61], and internal relocation was a viable option [82-85]. In conclusion, the Board held the applicant’s claim failed under all applicable grounds. It therefore dismissed his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003156_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision 12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 24 October 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 13.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. DISCUSSION 14.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1). 15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said he understood the Board’s Decision and asked the Court to reconsider it. 16.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
17.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings. 18.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. DISPOSITION 19.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. Dated the 19th day of August 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 |
Cases cited in this judgment