FARUK MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1035/2020
[2025] HKCFI 3943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1035 of 2020
BETWEEN | ||
| Faruk Mohammed | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative 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:
consideration of the documents only; or consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name (i) the TCAB as the putative respondent; and (ii) the DI as putative interested party; and
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 29 May 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 7 May 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”). A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].
2. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 19 November 2018. The Applicant named both the TCAB and the DI as the putative respondent. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DI as the putative interested party.
3. In the Applicant’s application, he has failed to identify any alleged errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness on the part of the TCAB in reaching the TCAB Decision to make good his challenge, either in the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation.
4. The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He claimed to be a supporter of a political party called Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). His non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of being harmed or killed by the senior leader and the affiliates of a political party called Awami League (“AL”), for having taken photographs of a lady associated with AL.
5. In the oral hearing before me, the Applicant confirmed that he had nothing else to add in addition to the papers filed in his application.
6. The TCAB conducted a hearing to inquire into the facts of the Applicant’s claim. The TCAB stated the applicable legal principles in the TCAB Decision and set out the Applicant’s case comprehensively. The TCAB found that the Applicant was an incredible and unreliable witness, and he was evasive in giving his oral evidence. The TCAB also found that the account in relation to the refusal to give the photographs taken and the explanation why those photographs were detrimental were fabricated. The TCAB was not convinced that the alleged assault against the Applicant exist. The TCAB then further rejected the alleged claim that the people in AL falsely accused the Applicant of threat and assault against other people. It was on such bases the TCAB found the Applicant not subject to any real risk of ill-treatment, torture, persecution or violation of fundamental rights should he return to his home country.
7. I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously. In my judgment, the TCAB Decision was based on sound factual findings and there was no apparent legal error in the decision. These findings were within the TCAB’s discretion and supported by evidence.
8. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any future risk of ill-treatment exists if an applicant returns to his/her home country lies with the TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh[2018] HKCA 246).
9. The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.
Dated the 3rd day of September 2025
| (Cheung Ho Yat, Annson) 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 3 September 2025 Faruk Mohammed 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 3 September 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14578/18/11/421/B1717 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4590/18 (formerly RBCZ 3002302/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1