HUSSAIN GHAFOOR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 830/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 830 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 Board as the putative respondent, the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party and the Board’s Decision 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.  The Applicant applied for leave to commence judicial review by a Form 86 filed on 7 May 2020 (“Form 86”) but failed to state in the form what decision was sought to be reviewed and what entities were the putative respondent and interested party.  In the oral hearing of this application, after being explained the procedural history of his non‑refoulement claim, the Applicant confirmed that he is seeking to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 27 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].  On my own motion, the Applicant’s Form 86 is amended as per paragraph 1 of my order above.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  His non-refoulement claim was based on the fear of being harmed or killed by members of two political parties because he had changed his support.  He also said he had a dispute with his fellow villagers because of his religious beliefs.  After conducting an oral hearing and assessing the evidence, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim of threat from political activists did not stand up to scrutiny and was not credible.  The Board also assessed that even if he was uncomfortable about returning to his home village because of religious conflict, the conflict would be only local in nature and there were available internal relocation alternatives to him.  The claim was therefore rejected. 

3.  The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously.  In my judgment, the decision was supported by factual findings and the Board had conducted an anxious scrutiny of the available evidence and information. 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 Board. 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).

4.  The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus 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