CHAKUM PATTAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 567/2024
[2025] HKCFI 3122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 567 of 2024
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 JudgeLevy:
The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Background
1. By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 8 April 2024, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 28 November 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 8 February 2023 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision is set out in the following hyperlink: -
2. The basis of the applicant’s claim was that she would be harmed or killed by members of “We Love Pattaya Party” after she had joined the opposite party, “Pattaya Future” if she were to be refouled. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.
3. The applicant filed an affirmation on 19 December 2024, applying for the withdrawal of the Leave Application. In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Leave Application on paper.
Discussion
4. The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.
5. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. However, the applicant has identified no such grounds either in her Form 86 or her supporting affirmation.
6. As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality.[3] In the present case, after having considered the applicant’s written and oral evidence as well as her claims, the Board found significant inconsistences in the applicant’s evidence. The Board concluded that the applicant was not a reliable witness particularly in relation to the asserted threats from WLP. The Board also assessed that several aspects of the applicant’s claims were vague and lacking in detail and lacked credibility. The Board concluded that the applicant had failed to present credible evidence to show that she would face a real risk of harm if she were to return to her home country. After having considered the relevant COI, the Board also found that state protection and internal relocation were also reasonably viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with subject to there being any public law errors.
7. Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the decision of the Board, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a very high standard of fairness. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, nor were such grounds identified in the Form 86. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].
Withdrawal application
8. In her affirmation seeking for withdrawal, the applicant only stated that she wanted to apply for the cancellation of the Leave Application. However, in her signed memo dated 31 March 2025 attached to a letter of the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (1) of the Immigration Department dated 9 April 2025, she stated that she wanted to go back to her home country as soon as possible.
9. Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the circumstances, I make an order to dismiss the Leave Application, and hereby order the dismissal of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board[2024] HKCA 1140.
Order
10. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Dated the 25th day of July 2025
| (Alfred Chan) 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
| Notesfor 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 25/7/2025 Chakum Pattama 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 25/7/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21483 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1225/22 (Formerly RBCZ 5001093/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1]Re Zunariyah[2018] HKCA 14 at §23.
[2]Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016 at §142.
[3]Re Lakhwinder Singh[2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh[2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara[2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524.
[4] Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.