Amr Mohamed Abdelgayed Kamel Elsharkawy v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1716/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1716 of 2025

BETWEEN

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 Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION  

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 22 July 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant  

4.The applicant is a national of Egypt. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be killed by his father because he converted from Islam to Christianity.

5.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink.

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001716_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 21 March 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 8 May 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant would not require non-refoulement protection as he did not suffer injuries up to the level of severity required; that he did not seek protection in Hong Kong until after he was arrested; that there was no evidence that the state was involved; that state protection will be available and internal relocation is viable as the risk, if any, is localized, if he returns to Egypt. [34]-[38], [54], [58] & [90]

10.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 31 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant has raised the issues of

(1)  failure to properly assess credibility and account for vulnerability: failing to consider his vulnerability as a self-represented person and his psychological trauma he had suffered before of religion conversion;

(2)  misapplication of the burden of proof and failure to assist a self-represented applicant: failing to appreciate his difficulties in obtaining evidence as a self-represented person;

(3)  failure to adequately consider the risk harm and internal relocation: failing to address the severity of the threats and the consistent pattern of violence and discrimination against the Christians in Egypt; no reason given for viability of internal relocation; and  

(4)  procedural unfairness and lack of process: hearing was unfair to him and failing to give reason on each of his claims.

DISCUSSION

13.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

14.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”

16.The applicant’s reasons under 12 are generally bare assertions or his opinions without any evidence in support. They are invalid to challenge the Board’s Decision[1]. The Board has made its finding that the applicant, on the facts of his case, did not suffer serious harm that meets the requirements of BOR 3 risk; that state protection will be available; and that his risk, if any, is localized and therefore internal relocation is viable. The applicant has given no evidence to refute these findings.

17.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 19^th day of August 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