|
HCAL 298/2022
[2026] HKCFI 2231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 298 of 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Ali, Ali Hassan |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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 Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee:
1. Form 86 be amended, adding the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and naming the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application herein for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 filed on 5 May 2022, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 13 April 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 June 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).
2. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision. It is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. Unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations and descriptions used in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink[1] to which is included below, are also adopted herein.
3. The Applicant attended the oral hearing scheduled and urged the Court to really look into his situation and understand the problems in his home country.
Discussion
4. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. The Leave Application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] In seeking to challenge the Board’s Decision, the Applicant ought to have clearly and precisely identified the grounds relied upon in the Form 86 and in his supporting affirmation. As matter stands, the Applicant has failed to identify any valid or effective public law grounds.[3]
5. In view of the seriousness of the issues involved, I have reminded myself of the enhanced standard required by law. Despite the Applicant did not advance any valid ground for the intended judicial review, I have scrutinized the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6. I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.[4]
7. First, the primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration and the Board and the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director of the Immigration).[5]
8. The Board was acutely aware of the Applicant’s claim that he would be (1) killed by the ruling CCM party in Tanzania because of his membership of the opposition i.e. CUF party; and (2) arrested by the Tanzanian police due to a false criminal case against him for being a homosexual. Despite the Applicant chose not to give oral evidence and not to answer any questions, the Board had assessed the material facts and evidence of the Applicant’s claim including the COI materials. The Board was entitled to find there were serious doubts as to the credibility of the Applicant’s claim and rejected the factual basis of his claim. It follows that the Board was entitled to conclude there were no substantial grounds for finding that there was a real risk that the Applicant would be subjected to torture, ill-treatment or persecution should he return to Tanzania.
9. Second, there is simply nothing to indicate the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board was quite simply entitled to come to the conclusions it did.
10. Third, in all circumstances, I can discern no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board in the assessment and rejection of the Applicant’s claim.
Conclusion
11. Accordingly, I dismiss the Leave Application.
Dated the 27th day of April 2026
| |
(Klein Tse)
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 27 April 2026
Ali, Ali Hassan
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 27 April 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16023/19/6/63/TA82
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 10223/19 (T2S14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|