Case Document

100%

HCAL 408/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 408 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Elogail Amir Khamis Mohamed Radwan Abdelkader	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Intersted 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 Andrew Li:

1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent and only the Director as the putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 17 March 2023(“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 2 February 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 13 July 2021 in refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named both the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and proposed interested parties.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the Board as the putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

3.The applicant requested for a hearing and he attended the same.

BACKGROUND

4.The applicant is a national of Egypt. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if he is refouled, he will be killed by his family’s business partner due to a dispute over money. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be accessed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall not repeat the same here.

DISCUSSION

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the Board, which together with the Director are the primary decision-makers. This 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 (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.In both of the Form 86 and his affirmation filed in support of the application, the applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the Board’s Decision. In the Form 86, under the “Grounds on which relief is sought”, the applicant merely stated that “The Decision to Refuse My Torture Claims / USM / TCAB including BOR 2 Risk / BOR 3 Risk / Torture Risk claims was unreasonable as my claims was not carefully consider.” In the affirmation, he stated that: “The Decision of the TCAB/Director of Immigration was unreasonable in that he failed to consider all the matters raised in my claims and/or give adequate reason for his decision.”

7.At the hearing, when asked if he had anything to add, he answered in the negative.

8.It has been held that in a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142]. He/she is also required to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

9.Besides the very general grounds stated above, the applicant has failed to provide any particulars as to what are the matters which the Board has allegedly failed to consider and which part of the Board’s Decision contained inadequate reason.

10.Looking at the Board’s Decision, the Board bore in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [64-65, 70-72, 75, 77-78].

11.It took into consideration the applicant’s case and evidence [8-30], including the evidence he gave at the hearing before the Board [31-46].

12.After thoroughly analysing and assessing the above [47-63], the Board came to the findings and conclusions that none of the grounds was made out [66-69. 73-74, 76, 79-80 & 81].

13.In short, the Board found that the applicant’s claims were not truthful and his evidence were full of inconsistencies and discrepancies. The Board found him to be an unreliable and incredible witness.

14.Despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I could not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision on public law grounds is not reasonably arguable.

CONCLUSION

15.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 15^th day of September 2026

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 15/9/2026 Elogail Amir Khamis Mohamed Radwan Abdelkader 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 15/9 /2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18369 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 510/21 (formerly RBCZ 10499/21) (T4S30) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)