GOHAR UR REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1203/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1203 of 2020

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  Form 86 be amended as follows:- the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 16 June 2020 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 15 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Form, the Applicant named himself as the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.

3.  The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 28 July 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he is still facing danger in his country. He said that his brother was killed by the same “enemy” on 23 July 2025, and he has documentary proof in support. The Applicant however said he did not have the documents with him at the moment, but he could submit the same as soon as possible. In the end, I granted leave to the Applicant to submit the relevant documents in support of what he said above by 4 August 2025. I further indicated to the Applicant that he should explain the incident and/or documents by way of affirmation if he wished to do so.

4.  Despite the aforesaid, no document or affirmation had been submitted by the Applicant by 4 August 2025. In fact, no additional document or affirmation has been submitted by the Applicant to date.

Background

5.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.

Discussion

6.  The applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14)

7.  In the Form, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that he is not satisfied with the Board’s Decision and that his life is still in danger in his home country. In respect of what the Applicant said at the hearing on 28 July 2025 as mentioned above, given the Applicant has failed to submit any documentary evidence in support, or any affirmation to explain the relevance of such alleged incident, I do not regard it appropriate to rely on his bare assertions made at the hearing. In any event, such bare assertions lack particulars and I have no way to ascertain whether what he said was relevant to his claims.

8.  I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. In particular, the Board had thoroughly considered the Applicant’s claims and his evidence, and was entitled to reject his claims (§§66-101 of the Board’s Decision). The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

9.  Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23). Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me.

Conclusion

10.  In the light of the reasons provided above, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be 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