Sekh Ujjal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1243/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1243 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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name the DI as a putative interested party as opposed to a putative respondent; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 22 June 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of a member/adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 17 June 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”).  A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1]. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 24 June 2019.  On my own motion, I amended the Form 86 to name the DI as a putative interested party as opposed to a putative respondent.

2.The Applicant has failed to identify any alleged errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness on the part of the TCAB in reaching the TCAB Decision to make good his challenge, either in the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation.

3.The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national.  He claimed to be a member of a political party called Jamaat-e-Islami (“JeI”).  His non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of being harmed or killed by the people of a political party called Awami League (“AL”).

4.The TCAB conducted a hearing to inquire into the facts of the Applicant’s claim.  The TCAB stated the applicable legal principles in the TCAB Decision and set out the Applicant’s case comprehensively. 

5.The TCAB accepted most of the Applicant’s assertions, but upon the evidence adduced he was only found to have low-level involvement in his political party and there was no real risk that he would be subjected to any ill-treatment by reason of that.  The claim was thereby dismissed with the DI’s first-tier decision upheld.

6.I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously.  In my judgment, the TCAB Decision was based on sound factual findings and there was no apparent legal error in the decision.  Those findings were within the TCAB’s discretion and supported by evidence.

7.It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any future risk of ill-treatment exists if an applicant returns to his/her home country lies with the TCAB.  In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’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).

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

Dated the 12^th day of November 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