Gariba Mamuda Alias Diarra Mamadou v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 68/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 68 of 2022

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) Sabrina Ho:

1.   Form 86 be amended by naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 18 January 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 26 October 2021 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision.

3.I will amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the Board as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the putative interested party.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 23 January 2026 (the “Hearing”).  At the Hearing, the Applicant said that he had done an X-ray and submitted certain medical records issued by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in May 2021 (the “Medical Records”). The Applicant confirmed that he has already submitted the said documents to the Board.  Apart from the above, the Applicant did not add anything orally.

Background

5.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

6.The relevant legal principles are well established.  The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board.  Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising 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 para. 14.  There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

7.The Applicant has not identified any ground in support of his Leave Application, whether in the Form or the Affirmation.

8.Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

9.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and her grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection.  The Board found that the Applicant’s evidence to be wholly unreliable.  Given the material inconsistencies, omissions and unconvincing explanations in the Applicant’s evidence, the Board found that the Applicant is not a witness of truth.  The Board concluded that the Applicant’s evidence concerning the alleged religious dispute and his possible arrest by the police in Kete-Krachi to be fabricated: see the Board’s Decision paras. 62-65.  As for the Medical Records, the Board had considered them but decided not to give any weight to them: see the Board’s Decision paras. 66-71.  On the above bases, the Board rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras. 72-79.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para. 23.  I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

11.For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave Application.

Dated the 16^th day of March 2026

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