Ali Saqib v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 104/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 104 of 2021

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) Philips Wong:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 1 February 2021 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 25 January 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application.  The hearing took place on 13 October 2025 and the Applicant attended in person.  At the hearing, apart from asking this Court to review his case, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application.

Background

3.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.

Discussion

4.The applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established.  The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) and the Board.  Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director).  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14)

5.In the Form, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application.  In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that the Board “could not give true and correct decision”.

6.I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail.  I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.  Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same.  There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided.  The Board was entitled to come to the conclusions it did and reject the Applicant’s claims (§§67-87 of the Board’s Decision).  This is particularly so given the Board had found the Applicant not to be a witness of truth and had fabricated his claims (§§67, 79 and 82 of the Board’s Decision).  I see no errors in the Board’s reasoning.  The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.  I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. 

7.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23).  Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me.    

Conclusion

8.In the premises, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 14^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