|
HCAL 3486/2019
[2025] HKCFI 3689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3486 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Ssenyonjo Robert |
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 Levy:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 25 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 1 November 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 12 December 2018 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003486_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
2. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by the Ugandan government due to his employment at the Rwenzururu Kingdom Palace.
3. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.
4. As the applicant had requested a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 29 July 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person, and requested an adjournment to enable him to engage a lawyer.
5. At the adjourned hearing on 7 August 2025, the applicant appeared in person without a lawyer. He confirmed that he was ready to proceed and made submissions in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.
Discussion
6. The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.
7. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.
8. In his affidavit sworn 6 December 2019, the applicant raised the following grounds for judicial review:
(a) His life would still be in danger if he were to return to his country;
(b) The Board’s Decision was irrational in that there was no basis or no sufficient basis for the Board to find that his claim of fear of torture by the Ugandan police and military was not credible, in light of his narrative and the “wanted person” poster with his photograph that he had provided to the Board;
(c) The Board’s Decision was irrational in that there was no basis or no sufficient basis for the Board to find that there were no substantial grounds to believe that he would face a real risk of being tortured and/or killed in the event of return to Uganda.
9. At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had any further grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. The applicant only repeated the same facts that he had presented to the Board, and submitted that everything he told the Board was true. He further submitted that the Board failed to make proper investigation of his case, and that he wished to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong because of the danger in his home country.
10. As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[3] In the present case, the Board found that the applicant was not a credible witness, due to material inconsistencies in his evidence for which he was unable to satisfactorily explain. The Board rejected the factual basis of the claim, and found that there was no real risk of harm. The Board did not accept the applicant’s claim that he was wanted by the police and military and/or other Ugandan authorities. The Board also did not accept the applicant’s claim that he could not relocate anywhere else in Africa given its size. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.
11. Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness in the Board’s Decision. I find the Board was entitled to reject the applicant’s claim after its careful assessment of the applicant’s credibility. After having rejected the applicant’s claim that he was wanted by the police and military and/or other Ugandan authorities, and his claim that he could not relocate anywhere else in Africa, I am satisfied that the Board was entitled in not making a separate finding on state protection and internal relocation. The applicant’s written grounds are either vague or lack particulars. At the adjourned hearing, the applicant was not able to advance any grounds in support of the Leave Application despite having been given more time to enable him to prepare the submissions. I find that the applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].
Order
12. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Dated the 22nd day of August 2025
| |
(Alfred Chan)
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 22/8/2025
Ssenyonjo Robert
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 22/8/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15007/18/12/364/U114
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4571/18 (Formerly RBCZ 10051/17)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|