Weerasinghe Pathiriyage Deepa Chandrani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1016/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1016 of 2020

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 Levy:

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the two Board’s Decisions both dated 8 May 2020 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 27 May 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against two decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) both dated 8 May 2020 (“Board’s Decisions”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against two decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) respectively dated 5 February 2014 and 29 October 2018 (respectively “Director’s 1^st and 2^nd Decisions”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decisions can be viewed at the following hyperlinks: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001016_2020_files/1st_Board's_Decision.pdf

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001016_2020_files/2nd_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In the Form 86, the applicant named the “Petition teams (Security Bureau)” as the proposed respondent and the Board as the interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director the interested party, the Form 86 will be accordingly amended on the court’s own motion.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Sri Lanka, she would be harmed or killed by a district councilor of the People Alliance Party. 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 Decisions.

4.At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 15 August 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from her, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to her updated address.

Discussion

5.The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], 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.

7.At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether she had any grounds she wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. The applicant stated that her problem still existed and that she still faced threat to her life.

8.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.[4] In the present case, notwithstanding that the Board dealt with the appeal against the Director’s 1^st Decision and the Director’s 2^nd Decision by two separate Board Decisions of the same date, the Board made the same findings in relation to the 4 different risks grounds. In both the Board’s Decisions, the Board found that the centerpiece of evidence in relation to her alleged membership of UNP; threats from UPFA and the district councilor not credible. Neither did the Board accept that the applicant was a wanted person. Further, due to the change of the political situation in Sri Lanka, the Board found that the applicant’s fear was not substantiated. The Board further found that state protection and internal relocation would be reasonably 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.

9.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 there was no risk of harm after having found that the applicant’s main planks of the evidence incredible. 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[5].

Order

10.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

11.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the two Board’s Decisions both dated 8 May 2020 be dismissed.

Dated the 19^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