AMINUL ISLAM MD v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1683/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4950

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1683 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 Applicant being absent in open court;

1.  Form 86 be amended, and 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 a Form 86 filed on 18 August 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 14 August 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 27 April 2020.

2.  I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.  The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application but he was absent at the hearing. I shall deal with this application on paper.

Background

4.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that his life would be in danger if he is to go back. The Applicant contends that his family were long-time supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami (“JI”). He became a member and a ward-level campaign secretary in around 2000. In 2006, the leader of JI’s political rival, Awami League (“AL), ordered AL’s members to kill JI’s workers who tried to intervene the AL-led anti-government rally in Dhaka. The Applicant went to the scene to protect his colleagues and witnessed them being beaten to death by AL supporters with bamboo sticks. Thereafter AL came to power and persecuted JI supporters. There were then attacks and threats against the Applicant starting from 2009 up till 2019/2020. He was also harassed by the local police. The Applicant further had a money dispute with his 4 business partners. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink [1]. I shall therefore not repeat them.

Discussion

5.  The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

6.  I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

7.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

8.  The Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86. In his affirmation, he emphasized that the threat and danger still remained, and the TCAB disregarded them “without any proper inquiry and without carefully understanding” the Applicant’s situation.

9.  As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available [3-40] and found that on the basis of the same, applying also the correct legal principles in respect of all four applicable grounds [42-47, 49-50, 57-58, 77-79, 87] and taking into account Country of Origin information [41], the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [51-56, 59-76, 80-86, 88-91].

10.  Further, the TCAB also concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available on the basis of the available evidence [64-70, 74-76, 90].

11.  All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is 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