Hussain Sarfraz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 447/2025 [2025] HKCFI 3131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 447 of 2025
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 4 February 2025 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. The applicant 3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 8 August 2024, the applicant surrendered to the Immigration Department, claiming that he sneaked into Hong Kong on 6 August 2024. In due course, he lodged a non-refoulement claim in Hong Kong. 4.The applicant’s claim was based on his fear of being harmed or killed by his paternal uncle and cousin because of a land dispute. 5.According to the applicant, his grandfather distributed land to his uncle and father and both were entitled to half the land. However, the uncle later wanted to take over the applicant’s father’s land entirely, which led the applicant to fighting with the uncle and cousins. Another similar incident later and the applicant was threatened by his cousin that he would kill him and his father. Details of his claim are set out at paragraph 6 of the Notice of Decision dated 22 October 2024 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”). The Director’s Decision 6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
7.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director assessed the applicant’s claim and dismissed his claim. In summary, the Director found that there were no substantial grounds for believing that there would be any substantial risk of being harmed or killed by the applicant’s uncle or cousin; that the dispute is solely a private dispute with no indication of involvement with the government [11-14]; that state protection was available [15-18]; and that internal relocation alternatives were available and reasonable [19-20]. The Board’s Decision 8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 7 January 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which the applicant adopted all the information contained in the Hearing Bundle and confirmed that they were all true and correct [12]. 9.Having considered the evidence, the Board found the applicant had not met the threshold required to substantiate all applicable grounds [60, 77, 83, 91]. In any event, having considered the Country of Origin Information, it found that state protection appeared available to the applicant [66-72], and internal relocation was a viable option and not unduly harsh [92-100]. 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/2025/HCAL000447_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision 10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 17 February 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The applicant included grounds which are, insofar as the Board’s Decision is concerned, summarized as follows:
11.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. DISCUSSION 12.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). 13.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 that he had been detained for more than 6 months and asked this Court to review the Board’s Decision. 14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
15.Those grounds under paragraph 10 are general assertions or his personal views without any evidence in support. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision. 16.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings. 17.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. DISPOSITION 18.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 20th 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