Sahid Abdul v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2202/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2202 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 3 November 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 23 October 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 9 November 2018 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds except the claim on the ground of torture (which was dismissed by the Director in a decision dated 30 December 2013). The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002202_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that he would be harmed or killed by (i) Minu Begum due to a marital dispute; (ii) Ahmed due to a money dispute. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 11 September 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

4.The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1]  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.  The applicant’s Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided no such grounds at all.

6.At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. At first, the applicant stated he had nothing to say. After the court reminded him that he had not provided any written grounds, the applicant then stated that his life would still be in danger if he were to go back home.

7.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[3] In the present case, the Board found that there were no substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of serious harm or death for the applicant from any of the 3 sources of his fear‑from Minu, Fsryaz or from reason of his loan default. The Board concluded that state protection and internal relocation would be available. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

8.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. I am satisfied that the Board was entitled to conclude that the risk of harm the applicant faced was remote. The applicant has not provided any grounds, whether written or oral, to support the Leave Application. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].

Order

9.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 30^th 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