Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 699/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 699 of 2025

BETWEEN
	Ullah Faiz	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 Applicant being present in open court;

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 11 March 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 4 July 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. According to the applicant, he sneaked into Hong Kong on 6 August 2024 and on 8 August 2024, he surrendered to the Immigration Department. In due course, the applicant lodged his non-refoulement claim.

5.The applicant’s claim was based on his fear of being harmed or killed by his paternal uncles and cousins due to a land dispute.

6.According to the applicant, the applicant’s father managed the farmland which belonged to his grandfather. After the grandfather passed away, the applicant’s paternal uncles and four cousins demanded his family to give up the farmland or they would kill him and his brothers. He also claimed that his relatives had connections with gangsters, but did not harm his father because he was old nor other family members. Details of his claim are set out at paragraphs 1 to 16 of the Board’s Decision dated 11 March 2025 (the “Board’s Decision”). See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL000699_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

7.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

8.The Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated (“the Director’s Decision”).

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicant appealed the Director’s decision to the Board. On 21 February 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. At the hearing, the Board considered and assessed the applicant’s evidence [20].

10.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant was not believable or unbelievable [54], and that the problem was purely a family land dispute [58]. In any event, the Board found that reasonable state protection was available [59-102] and internal relocation was not harsh [104]. 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.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 18 March 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has raised that the Director’s and the Board’s Decision are not reasonable and not fair; that there was a failure to consider state acquiescence; that excessive reliance was placed on the country of origin information; and that the Director failed to attain a high standard of fairness.

DISCUSSION

13.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).

14.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 was not clear about the Board’s Decision. The Court explained the main reasons of the Board’s Decision to him. The applicant confirmed he understood it. He made no further submission before the Court.

15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The 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 Board.”

16.Those grounds under paragraph 12 are his bare assertions or personal views, which are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision.

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 21^st day of August 2025

(Klein Tse)
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 21/8/2025 Ullah Faiz 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 21/8/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 25295 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL-0002529-24 (7)(CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)