|
HCAL 704/2020
[2025] HKCFI 2882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 704 of 2020
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Din Shamas |
Applicant |
|
and
|
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 20 April 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 14 April 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”). A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by in following hyperlink[1].
2. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 13 June 2018. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party.
3. In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision. In the oral hearing of this leave application, he did not advance any argument in support of the application and merely said that he wished the case to be “checked again”.
4. The TCAB had conducted an oral hearing for the Applicant’s appeal/petition. It came to the view that on the credible evidence before the TCAB, the Applicant has no real risk of facing persecution, torture or infringement of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of these matters lies with the Board. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’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).
5. I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not detect any reviewable ground. The leave application is thus dismissed.
Dated the 7th day of July 2025
| |
(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 7 July 2025
Din Shamas
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 7 July 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non--Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 12188/18/6/367/P2360
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 310/13 (formerly RBCZ 2241/09); QA T/C 1351/18 (formerly RBCZ 2001394/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|