|
HCAL 61/2020
[2025] HKCFI 6186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 61 OF 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Alam Reaz |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
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 Hon B. Fung J:
Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant Alam Reaz filed the Form 86 dated 7 January 2020 seeking leave for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) dated 13 December 2019 against his non-refoulement claim. He was absent at the hearing of his leave application.
2. The Applicant was born in India in 1988. He was an active and outspoken member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (“CPIM”). He was in conflict with the Trinamool Congress (“TMC”) party of India. In 2013, he was beaten up by 10-12 people of TMC with sticks, and they threatened to kill him if he would not join TMC. He was received minor injuries and was hospitalized for 1 day. He complained to police but they did not want to offend TMC.
3. In 2014, the members of TMC planted bombs but he was arrested of by the police and detained for 5 hours. The case was dropped by police because he had alibi witnesses. Still he was warned by the police that he was in great trouble.
4. After release, he was shouted with verbal abuse by member of TMC. His family was scared and urged him to leave India. On 3 December 2014, he left India and the came to Hong Kong.
5. The TCAB considered his appeal on the comprehensive grounds: (1) the risk under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) (“torture risk”); (2) risk to his right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap.383) (“BOR2 risk”). (3) risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP risks”) under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR3 risk”); (4) risk of prosecution with reference to the non-refoulement principles under Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (“persecution risk”). His case was dismissed by the TCAB on all grounds.
6. The TCAB found that he was a low-tier worker in CPIM rallying for votes. There was no evidence about the bombing incident save bare allegations. He alleged police brutality but was released by them after investigation. There was thousands of low-tier CPIM members and there was no evidence why he was singled out as a target.
7. The Country of Origin Information stated corruption in India but also reform. He agreed that those TMC against him were only local members and there was no reason why he could not relocate to other parts of India.
8. The Form 86 did not contain any ground of error against the TCAB, and his Affirmation dated 7 January 2020 simply exhibited the Decision and the hearing bundle before the TCAB.
9. Judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of the refoulement claim, but to consider whether the original decision maker(s) has erred in the law, irrationality in the decision(s) or procedural unfairness (see cases: (see cases: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).
10. The Application’s grounds did not contain particular errors of TCAB. He was absent at the hearing and did not supplement any arguments.
11. In the event, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
Dated the 12th day of December 2025
| |
(Kitty Lam)
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 12 December 2025
Alam Reaz
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 12 December 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 12744/18/8/14/IN 2536
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2265/18 (Formerly RBCZ 10441/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|