Tasawar Hussain v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 222/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 222 of 2021

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

Following;

	consideration of documents only;       or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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 24 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 10 February 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 27 October 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant said his brother was shot down in January 2025, and the people who shot down his brother had asked information about the Applicant. Details and particulars of the incident were not provided to the Court.  The Applicant had also not explained the relevance of the incident to the Leave Application. The Applicant further stated that he got married with a Hong Kong resident here in November 2024, and he asked for more time to stay in Hong Kong. Apart from the aforesaid, 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[1] is included below 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14)

5.The Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application in the Form or in the supporting Affirmation.

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 was entitled to reject the claim based on the evidence and the reasons provided (§§47-79 of the Board’s Decision). I find that the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.   

7.I also do not regard what the Applicant had said at the hearing on 27 October 2025 to be relevant to the Leave Application. As mentioned above, in respect of the alleged shooting incident of his brother, no details have been provided and the Applicant has not explained the relevance of the incident to the Leave Application. The fact that the Applicant has got married in Hong Kong is also irrelevant to the present Leave Application.

8.I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

9.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

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

Dated the 25^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