HAMAYOON alias HAMANOYU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1769/2020
[2025] HKCFI 4458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1769 of 2020
BETWEEN | ||
| Hamayoon alias Hamanoyu | 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 the Applicant being absent in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:
1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the TCAB only as putative respondent and the DOI as an interested party; and
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 4 September 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 24 June 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 30 April 2018 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as both the proposed respondent and interested party.
2. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB only as putative respondent and the DOI as an interested party.
3. The Applicant requested for a hearing but he did not attend the scheduled hearing on 3 September 2025. I see from the court record that the Applicant was successfully contacted on 27 August 2025 and informed of the scheduled hearing through the contact number he provided to the court. I see no reason why I should not proceed to deal with this application on paper despite his absence at the hearing.
Background
4. The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that his life would be at risk of people with whom he has land disputes if he was returned. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.
Discussion
5. In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. 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, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).
6. In his affirmation filed in support of this application, apart from stating that he was “not satisfied” with the TCAB Decision and reiterating the alleged danger if he was returned, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.
7. Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB considered all the allegations and materials placed before it [7-21], had in mind the correct principles [22-39], thoroughly analysed the evidence and applied those principles [41-78], and came to the conclusions that none of the allegations was made out [80-100]. The TCAB also came to conclude that internal relocation was available [101-106].
8. With the above, the TCAB proceeded to analyse each of the four applicable grounds under the USM and concluded that none was made out [107-116].
9. I do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
Conclusion
10. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.
Dated the 29th 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 29 September 2025 Hamayoon alias Hamanoyu 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 29 September 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board /Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11539/18/5/124/P2241 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1094/18 (formerly RBCZ 12149/15) [T6 S135] Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1