HCAL 631/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3929

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 631 of 2020

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 the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the NRCPO as the putative respondent and the NRCPO Decision as the decision sought to be reviewed; and

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant:

1. By a Form 86 filed on 14 April 2020 ( “Form 86” ), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of an adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( “TCAB” ) made on 13 March 2020. According to information obtained by the Court, the Applicant’s non‑refoulement claim was assessed in a decision made by an adjudicator of the Non‑Refoulememt Claims Petition Office ( “NRCPO” ) on 20 March 2020 ( “the NRCPO Decision” ); his torture claim was previously assessed by the TCAB in 2013 before the unified screening mechanism ( “USM” ) came into place. On my own motion, I amended the Applicant’s Form 86 to name the NRCPO as the putative respondent and the NRCPO Decision as the decision sought to be reviewed. The Director of Immigration ( “DI” ), who decided the Applicant’s claim (other than torture risk) under USM on 21 September 2018, has been correctly named by the Applicant as a putative interested party. A copy of the NRCPO Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink [1] .

2. The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He claimed to be a supporter of a political party of abbreviation “AL”. His non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of being harmed or killed by a money lender who was said to be the general secretary of a political party of abbreviation “BNP”.

3. The Applicant has set out a few grounds on which relief is sought in the supporting affirmation of this leave application. First, he said the NRCPO’s hearing of his claim was unfair because he did not have sufficient time to consider the documents in the hearing bundle ( “Hearing Bundle Ground” ). Secondly, he complained that he was not provided with legal representation or assistance for the filing of the petition to the NRCPO and at the NRCPO hearing ( “Legal Assistance Ground” ). Thirdly, he alleged that the NRCPO had failed to provide language assistance to him ( “Language Assistance Ground” ). Fourthly, he said the NRCPO had relied on country of origin information (