|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Ahmad Ali |
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 Ahmad Ali filed the Form 86 dated 7 January 2020 seeking leave for judicial review of the 1st Decision of the Director of Immigration (“DoI”) dated 31 July 2014 and the 2nd Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) dated 25 October 2017. He was absent at the hearing of his leave application.
2. The DoI has rendered two decisions. The 1st Decision dealt with the risk under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) (“torture risk”); the risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP risks”) under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap.383) (“BOR3 risk”); and the 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”). The 2nd Decision of DoI dated 19 December 2016 dealt with the right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR2 risk”).
3. The TCAB has also rendered two decisions. The 1st Decision dated 1 September 2015 dismissed the Applicant’s application to appeal out of time against the 1st Decision of DoI; and the 2nd Decision dated 25 October 2017 dismissed the appeal against the 2nd Decision of DoI.
4. The Applicant was born in 1987 in Pakistan. His case was based on political persecution and torture and fear for life by the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (“PML(N)”) and the Pakistan Government because of his activities as a member of the Muslim Students Federation in opposition to PML(N).
5. His allegations involved 2 incidents of shooting by PML(N) members in 2011; arrests for fabrication of murder and terrorism by the police and he was tortured by the police before that; killings of his relatives related to PML(N), and he was in fear of his life upon return to Pakistan.
6. The Applicant was out of time for a year to file his application to appeal against the 1st Decision of DoI. His explanation was because he was in prison. The TCAB considered that was not sufficient explanation for his delay, hence, leave out of time was refused.
7. The TCAB’s 2nd Decision related to the 2nd Decision of DoI on BOR2 risk. The facts were the same as in the 1st Decision of DoI. An Oral hearing was conducted. The TCAB considered there were only bare allegations, and the claim of fear for life was not substantiated. Also considering his young age, relocation was reasonably possible.
8. The Form 86 attached a sheet of 18 templated grounds on which relief was sought (see Appendix 1). They were general allegations of lack of sufficient consideration and unfairness by DoI and 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: 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 were very general and did not contain any particular errors of TCAB. He was absent at the hearing and did not supplement any arguments.
11. Having looked at the decisions of DoI and TCAB, I am not satisfied that they have erred, or that it was unreasonable for the Applicant to relocate elsewhere from his home turf.
12. In the event, the leave for judicial review is refused.
Dated the 22nd 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 22 December 2025
Ahmad 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 22 December 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 1619/15/6/5/P488
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 116/14 (Formerly RBCZ 1345/11-T6S74)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL
Appendix 1
GROUNDS ON WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT
1. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiring before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant has failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of his claim.
It is to be noted that the applicant is a torture-claimant who has no or limited options at his disposal to bring his evidence before the tribunal, and that to when he was in custody at the immigration detention centre.
The adjudicator has failed to give sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence to her non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.
2. The Applicant believes that the Director(s) of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Appeal Board reached the decision wrongly in assessing his Non-refoulement claim. He believes that these decisions were not reasonable and fair (as required by the wednesbury test).
Indeed, the right to life is protected under Article 28 of the Basic Law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. In practice, the right to life is mainly protected by the criminal law and it must be protected from extra-judicial killings such as the applicant may face if he would be deported to her country.
In addition to this, the applicant believes that the Adjudicator failed to give her sufficient time and chance to arrange relevant evidence to his non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.
3. From the Director's Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight-age to the presence of state Acquiescence in the Applicant's case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement claim.
4. It is submitted that the state would be rendered liable to the applicant by cause of the state and its public officials failing to provide reasonable protection for its citizens under the duty of due diligence.
5. The Applicant was torfured at the Behest of and in full collusion of the police and the state law enforcement agencies as well as those in the high ups of political circles. The whole saga of misfortune was a direct result of misconduct of police officials.
6. The Applicant submits that the Director has failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.
7. Further, the Applicant submits that although the Director had listed relevant COIs which support the Applicant's aversions that the police in her country would not be able to protect. The Director failed to consider or give sufficient weight-age to those evidence and ruled otherwise.
8. Surprisingly, the director in her Decision while referring to relevant COIs. Kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render her Decision void.
9. In Fact, the corruption and incompetency of the administration in his country is still a very serious problem. Various human rights organization has complied reports on the matter which stated testament to the applicant's assertions.
10. Further, the Director has failed to attain the high standard of fairness required by the
Wednsebury test in the decision with the arguments put forward above. As such, the decision of the director should be considered unreasonable in the scope of Public Law.
11. If the Applicant did not run away, he certainly would have been harmed or killed by them. The Applicant's problems were getting life-threatening day-by-day, so he had no other choice but to escape.
12. I, as applicant submit that the present leave application and present that the outcome will not only affect myself but also over 1,000 torture claimants in Hong Kong as well as the current procedures practised by the Director and the Board.
13. I was deprived to present my case in detail and the Judgements in the Court of Appeal decided my case on the available information they had at hand.
14. It is unfair and unjust to decide and conclude my case on mere insufficient evidence, which I had undertaken to submit and furnish to the Court. My pleadings were ignored.
15. The legal issues which i will raise are complex and have not yet been argued in full and as of consequence have not yet been adjudicated upon by any courts.
16. The high standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim because of the gravity of what is at stake. The standards were not warranted in my case. It was in haste which jeopardizes my life and to the rule of laws.
17. In addition, the adjudicator failed to scrutinize the Director and it is a general practice of the Board to not question or find fault with the decision of the Director. He also criticized the Board for failing to consider the conditions of my country of origin.
18. The Applicant respectfully asks the Court to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review.