BASIT ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 5/2021

[2025] HKCFI 6362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 5 of 2021

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 Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 4 January 2021, 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 21 December 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 28 November 2019 (“Director’s Decision”) 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/2021/HCAL000005_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  In the Form 86, the applicant named the Director as well as the Adjudicator of Board as the proposed respondents and the Board as the interested party. As the Director should have been the interested party, the Form 86 will be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a land dispute. 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.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 9 December 2025. The applicant attended in person.

Discussion

5.  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.

6.  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. The applicant’s Form 86 contained no grounds at all. In the supporting affirmation, the applicant stated that his uncle knew that the disputed land would increase price in the future and that he would certainly be killed.

7.  At the hearing, I asked him if he wanted to say anything in support of the Leave Application. The applicant stated that he could not think of any mistake the Board had made, but his problem had not yet been resolved.

8.  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’s claim that his Uncle wanted to revenge against him for having shot in the air in trying to rescue his father and younger brother was a bare assertion. Neither was the Board satisfied that the Uncle had the financial wherewithal to finance hitmen to hunt for the applicant. The Board therefore found that there was no real and personal chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm in the future if refouled. The Board further found that internal relocation was reasonably viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors

9.  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. The applicant has not advanced any grounds, whether written or oral, in support of the Leave Application.  The brief assertion stated in the supporting affirmation was not ground at all. I am satisfied 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].

Orders

10.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

11.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review 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