DEDI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1483/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1483 of 2022

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 documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 13 December 2022 (“Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 23 November 2022 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 20 July 2021.

2.  On 13 April 2026, the Court mailed a notice to the address stated by the applicant on the Form 86 (“Address”), which remains the most updated address in the database of the Immigration Department, informing the applicant that the hearing of the Form 86 would take place on 5 May 2026 (“Notice of Hearing”).

3.  On 27 April 2026 and 4 May 2026 respectively, the Court’s clerks called the applicant at the most updated mobile number in the database of the Immigration Department but no one answered.

4.  On 5 May 2026, the applicant was absent from the hearing of the Form 86.

5.  On 14 May 2026, the Notice of Hearing was returned to the Court by the post office, which advised that the Address was incomplete, insufficient or non-existent.

6.  Given all available means of communication have been exhausted by the Court, I shall proceed to consider the Form 86 substantively notwithstanding the problems about contacting the applicant for the hearing of the Form 86 as mentioned above.

7.  I refer to the Board’s Decision for the background of the applicant, the basis of the claim, the evidence and the argument the applicant has relied upon, which will not be repeated herein.

8.  The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Given the seriousness of the issue involved in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decisions of the Board. However, the Court will not intervene unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at paragraph 14.

9.  The present application for leave is meant to be a filtering process, and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at paragraph 23. I will therefore provide brief reasons for my decision as follows.

Discussion

10.  The applicant has not provided any grounds for the intended application for judicial review.

11.  Applying the enhanced standard of scrutiny, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness of irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

12.  The Board’s Decision has, with respect, correctly and comprehensively set out the applicable legal principles. I do not see any errors in either the summary or the application of those legal principles.

13.  The Board’s Decision has also set out the procedural history of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim, including the details of the hearing before the Board on 19 January 2022 (see paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Board’s Decision). The applicant has made no complaint of any irregularities or unfairness in the entire process.

14.  After a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence, the Board concluded that the applicant’s assertion that the chief of his village threatened to kill him if he did not convert from Muslim to Hindu was inconsistent with his behaviour (see paragraph 72) and his evidence fell far short of being able to establish the proscribed risks (see paragraphs 74, 80, 84, 80 and 90 of the Board’s Decision). In any event, the Board took the view that state protection would be available and internal relocation would be possible and not unduly harsh (see paragraphs 61 and 71 of the Board’s Decision). Based on the available materials, the conclusions of the Board were clearly justifiable. I do not see any basis to suggest that the Board was irrational based on the principle set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

15.  I therefore dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Form 86.

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