Hiron v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 1750/2020 [2025] HKCFI 4487 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1750 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.By a Form 86 filed on 31 August 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 2 August 2019 (the “TCAB Decision”) affirming the decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 18 December 2017, which refused the Applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as both the proposed respondent and interested party. 2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB only as putative respondent and the DOI as a putative interested party. 3.The TCAB Decision only concerned three of the four applicable grounds under the USM, as the Applicant’s claim based on torture risk had been made and rejected by the DOI in 2012, and the rejection was affirmed by the TCAB in 2013. 4.The Applicant requested a hearing and he attended the same. When asked if he had anything to add he confirmed that he had not. However, he did say that his correspondence address was “not safe” so I gave the direction that he would be notified of my decision when it is ready through his contact number and arrangement for collection in person would be made. Background 5.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he would be harmed or even killed by people of opposing religious and political affiliation. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein. Discussion 6.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676). 7.In his affirmation filed in support of this application, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision. 8.Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into consideration the Applicant’s case and evidence [8-33], including what he said at the hearing before the TCAB [34-35] and relevant COI [46-64]. The TCAB also applied the correct principles applicable to the grounds before it [36-45]. 9.After thorough analysis of the evidence [65-79], the TCAB came to the findings that the Applicant’s allegations were not made out [80-94]. With that the TCAB went on to analyse each of the three applicable grounds before it and came to the conclusion that none was made out [95-97]. 10.The TCAB further concluded that internal relocation was available to the Applicant [98‑100]. 11.I therefore do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Conclusion 12.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application. Dated the 30th 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment