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

HCAL 229/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 229 OF 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of 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) Teresa Wu:

(1)   Form 86 be amended, adding the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

(2)   The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 (“Form 86”) filed on 21 January 2020, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 17 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 October 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), which rejected his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).

Background

2.The Applicant’s personal background, his case and claim, the facts alleged by him to show that he would be harmed or killed in Pakistan because of his refusal to join Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PMLN), and the immigration and procedural history, etc. have been comprehensively set out in the Board’s Decision.  It is not necessary for me to reiterate them here.  For completeness’ sake, reference can be made to the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which is included below[1]. Unless otherwise specified, I will adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions below.

Discussion

3.The Applicant’s intended application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success (see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Another (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

4.In gist, the Applicant expressed his fear of certain individuals affiliated with PMLN, asserting that his support for PTI since around 2011 made him a target.  It was also his claim before the Board that he would be harmed, ill-treated, or killed by PMLN if refouled.  

5.Having considered all the available evidence, including those submitted by the Applicant, the Board found as follows:

(1)   The Applicant was not subject to any threat as a personal target of PMLN. There was no evidence indicating that he was personally targeted due to his affiliation with PTI.  There was additionally no evidence that the State or any public official were involved.  His claim regarding PMLN’s involvement in the alleged situations were purely speculative.

(2)   The Applicant did not face any risk throughout the country.  There was no evidence to suggest that PMLN had any influence beyond the local area.  Conversely, the evidence indicated that he had moved to other parts of Punjab for a long period of time without any incidents.  Given that another five years had passed since he left the country, any lingering risk to him must have significantly diminished.

(3)   The Applicant did not suffer any injuries of the requisite severity.

(4)   It was not demonstrated that the state of Pakistan was unwilling to assist for a Convention reason.  The Applicant successfully registered two FIRs with the local police and acknowledged that he did not follow up with other organizations after the police took no action.

6.Based on these factual findings, the Board rejected the Applicant’s claim for non-refoulement on the grounds that there was no Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk, or Torture Risk.   

7.It is well-established that the merits of a non-refoulement claim are matters for the primary decision-maker and the Court should not usurp the role of the Board in the absence of valid public law grounds (see 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, etc.).  The Applicant has not shown that the Board committed any legal error in reaching its decision, nor was there any evidence of procedural unfairness or irrationality.  After applying an enhanced standard, with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny in light of the seriousness of the issues involved, I am satisfied that the law relating to the Grounds was correctly applied and that a very high standard of fairness was observed by the Board.

Conclusion

8.For these reasons, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 16^thday of July 2025

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

Form CALL-1