Case Document

100%

HCAL 1160/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1160 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ali Sanda Mohamed	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 the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name (a) the Board as the putative respondent, (b) the DI as putative interested party and (c) the Board’s Decision as the decision sought to be reviewed; and

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 11 June 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision dated 20 May 2020 without specifying which administrative body made it. The Director of Immigration (“DI”) was named as putative respondent.

2.According to an exhibit to the supporting affirmation, the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was actually decided by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) on 20 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1]. The Board’s Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 5 October 2018. In the circumstances, I amended the Form 86 on my own motion as per paragraph 1 of my order above.

3.The Applicant comes from Niger, an African country. The basis of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was that he was in fear of being harmed or killed by his ex-employer, who allegedly had police connection, over a money matter.

4.After an oral hearing, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant’s claim was not credible. Accordingly, he was not found to have any substantial ground to believe that he would face risk of ill-treatment.

5.In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the Board’s Decision. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the Board. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the Board’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

6.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 10^thday of September 2025

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 10 September 2025 Ali Sanda Mohamed 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 10 September 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13948/18/10/290/NR19 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3340/18 (formerly RBCZ 11733/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)