MUKAROM MOHAMAD ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1095/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1095 of 2020

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;

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the DI as a putative interested party and the Board’s Decision dated 28 May 2020 as the decision sought to be reviewed; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 4 June 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 15 April 2020. Upon clarification, it was noted that 15 April 2020 was actually the date the Board heard the Applicant’s case, and the date the Board delivered its decision was in fact 28 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].

2.  The Board’s Decision arose from an appeal/petition against the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s decision dated 30 October 2019. The Applicant also named the DI and his decision as the target of this judicial review application. On my own motion, I amended the Form 86 to name the Board’s Decision as the only decision challenged and added the DI as a putative interested party (instead of putative respondent).

3.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. He claimed that he had a debt problem in his home country and would be harmed/killed by his creditor. After an oral hearing, the Board made adverse credibility finding against him because of the inconsistencies in his evidence

4.  In my judgment, the Board’s Decision was supported by factual findings and the Board had conducted an anxious scrutiny of the available evidence and information.

5.  The Applicant has not put forward any public law grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality against the Board’s Decision in her court documents or during the oral hearing before this Court. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the administrative decision-maker. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the Board’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

6.  The leave application to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

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