Ravelomanantsoa Hajatiana Holisoa v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 3209/2019 [2025] HKCFI 3330 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3209 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 18 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 16 June 2025. The applicant 3.The applicant, aged 52, is a national of Malagasy. He is an illegal immigrant. He last entered Hong Kong on 31 December 2017 and was given a visa valid until 14 January 2018. He overstayed, but surrendered to the Immigration Department on 15 January 2018. 4.According to the applicant, various persons owe him business debts for vehicle rental charges, while he in turn owes other persons business debts for vehicle rental charges. Unknown persons tried but failed to kidnap his son. Unknown people lurked outside his house. No one has directly subjected him to violence or directly threatened him but someone is after him, and he assumes that that ‘someone’ is one or more of his debtors or creditors. 5.Details of his claim are set out at paragraphs 32-44 of the Board’s Decision. The Director’s Decision 6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 21 September 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated. Besides, state protection is available and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize the applicable risks. The Board’s Decision 8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board decided that it was not necessary to conduct an oral hearing for his appeal. 9.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that given the facts of the applicant’s case, there is no evidence to show that he is subjected to any real risk of harm under any of the applicable risks and, even if his view were wrong, internal relocation is viable, if he returns to his country. [48]-[55] & [75]-78] See hyperlink Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision 10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 29 October 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 11.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific reason 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 agreed that he did not have reason to say that the Board’s Decision was wrong. 14.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. 15.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. DISPOSITION 16.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 21st 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