Case Document

100%

HCAL 830/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 830 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Hussain Ghafoor	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 the Board as the putative respondent, the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party and 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.The Applicant applied for leave to commence judicial review by a Form 86 filed on 7 May 2020 (“Form 86”) but failed to state in the form what decision was sought to be reviewed and what entities were the putative respondent and interested party. In the oral hearing of this application, after being explained the procedural history of his non‑refoulement claim, the Applicant confirmed that he is seeking to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 27 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1]. On my own motion, the Applicant’s Form 86 is amended as per paragraph 1 of my order above.

2.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. His non-refoulement claim was based on the fear of being harmed or killed by members of two political parties because he had changed his support. He also said he had a dispute with his fellow villagers because of his religious beliefs. After conducting an oral hearing and assessing the evidence, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim of threat from political activists did not stand up to scrutiny and was not credible. The Board also assessed that even if he was uncomfortable about returning to his home village because of religious conflict, the conflict would be only local in nature and there were available internal relocation alternatives to him. The claim was therefore rejected.

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously. In my judgment, the decision was supported by factual findings and the Board had conducted an anxious scrutiny of the available evidence and information. 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).

4.The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.

Dated the 18^th day 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 18 September 2025 Hussain Ghafoor 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 18 September 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12817/18/8/87/P2496 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2503/18 (formerly RBCZ 13967/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)