ALI ATIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 873/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 873 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 DI as the putative interested party; 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 11 May 2020 (“Form 86”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].

2.  The Board’s Decision was on appeal/petition from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“the DI”) dated 30 July 2018 (“the DI’s Decision”).  On my own motion, the Applicant’s Form 86 is amended to add the DI as a putative interested party.

3.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He claimed to be the supporter of a political party of abbreviation PTI.  His non-refoulement claim was based on the fear of being harmed or killed by certain members of other political parties of abbreviations PML(N) and MNA.  After conducting an oral hearing and assessing the Applicant’s evidence, the Board found the Applicant’s claim not credible because of multiple inconsistencies in his evidence.   The claim was therefore rejected. 

4.  The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation.  In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant only reiterated he had provided all evidence to the DI and the Board, people in his local area belonged to PML(N) and he needed more time to stay in Hong Kong.

5.  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).   

6.  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