Mehmood Arshad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 998/2020[2025] HKCFI 2766

Court

High Court CFI

Date08 Jul 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 998/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 998 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Mehmood Arshad	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 Levy:

1. The Form 86 is amended on the court’s own motion.

2. The Leave Application be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By prescribed Form 86 filed on 25 May 2020, 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/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 16 July 2018 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 20 September 2017 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.In the Form 86, the applicant did not name any interested party. As the Director should have been the proper interested party, the Form 86 will be accordingly amended on the court’s own motion.

Background

3.The background as taken from the Director’s Decision and Board’s Decision can be briefly stated as follows.

4.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He came to Hong Kong illegally on 10 August 2011. On 5 August 2014, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement application, relying on all applicable grounds: risk of torture[1], BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3] and persecution risk[4] under the USM.[5] The claim was based on a fear of being harmed or killed by his a gangster over a land dispute. In neither Form 86 nor the affirmation in support did the applicant provide any specific grounds to support the Leave Application or any explanation for his lengthy delay in filing the Form 86. Accordingly, this court orders the dismissal of the Leave Application.

5.The court recently received information from the Immigration Department that the applicant passed away in 2024.

Orders

6.The Form 86 is amended on the court’s own motion.

7.The Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 8^th 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

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 8/7/2025 Mehmood Arshad 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 8/7/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 8681/17/10/11/P1714 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1918/17 (Formerly RBCZ/10751/15) (T3S112) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] This refers to the risk of torture as defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115.

[2] This refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under Art. 2 of s.8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”).

[3] This refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Art 3 of HKBOR.

[4] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Art. 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

[5] This refers to the Hong Kong Government’s Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) implemented since 3 March 2014 to process claims for non-refoulement protection. For a detailed description of the USM, see the judgment of Zervos J in HKSAR v Vu Thang Duong & Anor [2015] 3 HKC 293.

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

HKSAR v. Vu Thang Duong

[2015] 3 HKC 293 · High Court CFI

16 Mar 2015

Full analysis