CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1253 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Haider Ali |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative Respondent |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
|
| |
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 Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 May 2020 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.
2. The applicant asked for a hearing. He appeared before the Court on 22 September 2025.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant, having entered Hong Kong illegally on 19 June 2019 and surrendered to the Immigration Department. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by Faria Aslam, the brother of his girlfriend because her family disproved their relationship. Faria had threatened to kill him.
5. Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001253_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.
The Director’s Decision
6. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
7. By way of Notice of Decision dated 5 November 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated. Besides, state protection is available and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize the applicable risks.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 23 March 2020, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
9. Having considered the evidence, the Board found the facts below.
(1) The applicant had only made bare assertions without any proof. [19]
(2) It is unconvincing that Faria would kill him as he and his people had already had the opportunity to do so, but they did not do so. [36]
(3) There was no record of his injuries and he did not report to police. [37]
(4) The future risk as suggested by the applicant is only speculative and there was no evidence that the state was involved. [39]
(5) The Board found that even if the facts were accepted, it was only a private dispute and the applicant had not suffered any physical or mental suffering that reached the level of severity under BOR 3 risk. [56]
(6) There was no evidence of persecution. [62]
(7) There was no evidence that state protection will not be available to him. [63]
(8) Internal relocation is viable. [90]-[95]
(9) There was no evidence to support of any of the applicable risks. [96]
10. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 22 June 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.
DISCUSSION
13. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant submitted he did not think the Board was wrong. Perhaps, the Board’s standard is too high.
15. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The 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 Board.”
16. The Board’s Decision has clearly shown that the Board had doubts on the facts of his case. It further make provisions that even if his story were accepted, he was still not eligible for the status of a refugee as found by the Director.
17. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.
18. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
19. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
Dated the 23rd day of October 2025
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 23/10/2025
Haider Ali
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 23/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16492/19/11/50/P3245
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 745/19 (formerly RBCZ 10501/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1