IDREES AMIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 42/2020

[2025] HKCFI 6244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 42 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;

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant Idress Amir filed the Form 86 dated 6 January 2020 seeking leave for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) dated 24 December 2019 against his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a Pakistani born in1988. He had a love affair with a girl Shazia. In 2008, Shazia’s brother and two others attacked him and frightened his girlfriend. In February/March 2009, he was beaten up by the girlfriend’s brothers again. He did not report the matter to police since he had no bribe money, then he then said it was not bribery but attackers threatened to kill him if he reported to the police.

3.  About one week after the 2^nd incident in 2009, the brothers came with more people, around 10, and told him to leave the area, otherwise he would be killed. The police refused his report since the attackers had connections. Two senior police officers told him to leave city. He broke up with Shazia because of threats by her family. The Applicant said he could not relocate elsewhere in Pakistan because he had no money to start up again. He left Pakistan for Hong Kong.

4.  In 2010, Shazia committed suicide and he was blamed for her death. He had no knowledge of Shazia’s family for 10 years.

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”).

6.  The TCAB noted that Shazia had died long ago and nothing more happened. The Applicant stayed in Hong Kong for 10 years and survived, hence he could relocate in Pakistan as well. The TCAB found that the Applicant had failed to substantiate claim.

7.  The Form 86 did not contain any grounds, and the Affirmation simply exhibited the TCAB decision with any grounds.

8.  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: 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).

9.  The Application did not put up any grounds that the TCAB had erred. At the hearing, he only said his communications were pried into since the Hong Kong police had his mobile number. However, that is not relevant to Judicial Review in question.

10.  Hence, leave is refused.

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