Safdar Asjad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 700/2020 [2025] HKCFI 4078 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 700 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
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 (“the Board”) made on 26 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1]. 2.The Board’s Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 26 June 2018 (“DI’s Decision”). The Form 86 has identified both the Board and the DI as putative respondents and putative interested parties, and challenged both the Board’s Decision and the DI’s Decision. This is incorrect as it is trite that the DI’s Decision has been superseded by the Board’s Decision after the latter’s making. I therefore amended the Form 86 on my own motion as per paragraph 1 of my order above. 3.The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application. I proceed to deal with the leave application based on the materials placed before me. 4.The Applicant is a Pakistani national. He claimed to be a supporter of a political party called “PMLQ”. The basis of his non-refoulement claim was that he was in fear of being harmed or killed by the workers of another political party called “PMLN” should he return to Pakistan. After an oral hearing, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant was not subject to any real risk of being harmed, killed, tortured or violated his fundamental human rights should he return; neither was he under any well-founded fear of being persecuted so that he had to stay outside Pakistan. He was also found to have a reasonable internal relocation alternative. 5.In his supporting affirmation of this leave application, the Applicant has purportedly set out some grounds of judicial review. They are summarized as follows. First, he complained that he did not have legal representation before the Board. From the materials available to the Court, it is clear the Applicant had the benefit of legal assistance before the DI’s Decision. Authorities on legal representation in non-refoulement claim handling process have not gone so far to require all claimants be provided with legal representation at all stages of the process. Secondly, the Applicant argued the Board had fettered its discretion, been procedurally unfair and irrational, but did not provide particulars how the Board committed these errors. Having anxiously scrutinized the Board’s Decision, I am unable to accede to any of these unparticularized arguments. In my view, the Board’s Decision was reasoned and within the range of rational decisions that it could make. 6.Thirdly, it was argued the Board’s Decision was not interpreted to him. It is noted that the Applicant provided an affirmation of 16 pages written in English, and there are no authorities suggesting that the high standard of fairness requires the Board to interpret its own decision to the Applicant after the claim has been disposed of by it. 7.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed. Dated the 9th day of September 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||