HCAL 840/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 840 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 Board as the only putative respondent, the DI as the only putative interested party and the Board’s 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. The Applicant applied for leave to commence judicial review by a Form 86 filed on 8 May 2020 ( “Form 86” ) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office ( “the Board” ) dated 25 April 2020 (which was actually dated 24 April 2020) ( “the Board’s Decision” ). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink [1] .

2. The Board’s Decision was on appeal/petition from a decision of the Director Immigration ( “the DI” ) dated 1 August 2018 ( “DI’s Decision” ). The DI and the DI’s Decision were also named as the putative respondent and the decision sought to be reviewed in the Form 86. It is trite that after the Board’s decision on an appeal/petition is made, the DI’s original decision is superseded and generally should no longer be the subject of judicial review proceedings. In the oral hearing of this application, after hearing my explanation on the law, the Applicant confirmed he would just seek to review the Board’s Decision. On my own motion, the Applicant’s Form 86 is amended as per paragraph 1 of my order above.

3. The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. His non-refoulement claim was based on the fear of being harmed or killed by a money lender. After conducting an oral hearing and assessing the evidence, the Board accepted the Applicant’s assertions that he had borrowed money in Pakistan which he was unable to repay, but the Board did not accept that he had a real risk of being killed or subjected to serious harm should he return to Pakistan. The availability of internal relocation alternatives also served to reduce the risk of any ill-treatment to him. The claim was therefore rejected.

4. The Applicant has set out a few grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 against the DI’s Decision and one ground against the Board’s Decision. In view of the position stated in paragraph 2 of these Observations for the Applicant, I will only focus on the ground