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

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 dated 9 August 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 30 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 4 November 2020.

2.  The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and attended the same.  When asked, she said that she had nothing to add.

Background

3.  The Applicant is a national of Nepal.  In gist, she fears that her life will be in danger (by her late husband’s family) if she is to be returned to Nepal because she had converted to be a Christian while she was in Hong Kong.  The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them.  Unless otherwise specified, TCAB’s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein.

Discussion

4.  The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23].  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

5.  I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal.  While I also remind myself that in non-refoulement cases, I would adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court would not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)].  There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. 

6.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

7.  By letter dated 4 November 2025, the Applicant submitted a document which contains 10 grounds on which relief is sought.  However, those grounds are vague and generic, and do not in truth point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision, notwithstanding the fact that the grounds adopted similar terminology.  This Court has seen these standard grounds many times.   

8.  As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available and found that on the basis of the same, applying the correct legal principles in respect of all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [38-56].  The Applicant’s case was hopeless.  She was evasive and had changed her story multiple times after the TCAB pointed out the inconsistencies [31].  In any event, since there was no claim that her late husband’s family was powerful or influential such that they could locate her anywhere in Nepal [31(f)], and considering the country of origin information [36-37], relocation was a viable option for her [57-59].       

9.  There is a clear mismatch between the purported grounds the Applicant raised and the actual findings of the TCAB.  The TCAB’s ruling focuses on the Applicant’s credibility.  The purported grounds do not contain any substantive challenge on this issue.  On the issue of relocation, while grounds 5-10 are tangentially relevant, they are so vague and so contrary to her evidence below that they are unhelpful. As stated above, they are merely pro forma grounds, and thus the mismatch is to be expected.

10.  All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision whether as alleged in the grounds or at all, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.  The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. 

11.  For completeness, I note that the application was in fact slightly out of time (for a few days).  I disregard this for present purposes as it would have no impact on my decision.

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