Case Document

100%

HCAL 125/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 125 OF 2023

BETWEEN

	Aly Ibrahim Abdelaziz Khatr	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

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 Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 42-year-old national of Egypt who last arrived in Hong Kong on 16 September 2019 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 15 December 2019 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police some 9 months later on 21 September 2021. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Egypt he would be harmed or killed by his business partner over their monetary dispute. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Daryl, Sadegh, Calziton, Cairo, Egypt. After leaving school he worked as an apprentice and then a staff in a jewelry shop in Cairo to make his living.

3.In 2008, he started his own jewelry business at the invitation of and in partnership with a customer by the name of Mansor of the Applicant’s former employer and who was said to be welfare and influential, and for which Mansor invested US$2 million in capital for the business but would not be personally involved in the running of the business which was part of the duties of the Applicant including making business trips to overseas for purchasing merchandises for the business.

4.However, their business did not fare well with little profits, and led to Mansor frequently questioning about the Applicant’s ability to run the business and complaining about the lack of profits, and that on one occasion in 2016 when their discussions deteriorated to some argument during which the Applicant was hit in the head by one of Mansor’s followers with an iron bar that caused profuse bleeding that he was subsequently taken to a local hospital for medical treatments.

5.Thereafter the Applicant became concerned for his safety but nevertheless continued to run the business, but during one of his business trips to Hong Kong in September 2019 for purchasing merchandizes, he was informed by one of their mutual friends that Mansor had finally lost his patience with the Applicant and the business and was thinking of “finishing” the Applicant upon his return from the business trip, and so the Applicant was afraid to return to Egypt and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon his subsequent arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 16 December 2020 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6.By a Notice of Decision dated 20 May 2021, the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

7.In his decision, the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his former business partner Mansor upon his return to Egypt as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of Mansor to seriously harm or kill him over their dispute, that in any event it was a private business or monetary dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Egypt with a large population of 106 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Alexandra or Port Said where it would be difficult if not impossible for Mansor to locate him.

8.On 1 June 2021, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended oral hearings on 9 and 23 of September 2022 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 26 January 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.In its decision[1], the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from some business partner Mansor over their monetary dispute that caused him to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of Mansor to seriously harm or kill him other than just hearsays of some angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private business dispute between the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Egypt if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by Mansor that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.On 31 January 2023, the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just repeated his claim as before that his life is still in danger in his country but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

11.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

12.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim essentially on its adverse finding on his credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in paragraphs of its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

13.Furthermore, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of , there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

14.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

15.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss his application.

Dated the 18^th day of August 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 18 August 2026 Aly Ibrahim Abdelaziz Khatr Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 18 August 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18030 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 825/20 (formerly RBCZ 10714/20)(T3S4) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)