Riaz Khurram v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 527/2022

[2025] HKCFI 3133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 527 of 2022

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 documents and Applicant being present in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 17 June 2022 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant asked for a hearing. He appeared before the Court on 6 June 2025.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 29 May 2021, the applicant was arrested by police for having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong. In due course, he lodged a non-refoulement claim in Hong Kong.

4.The applicant’s claim was based on his fear of being harmed or killed by members of the Muslim League (Qalf) (“MLQ”) and their subordinates (collectively referred to as “Enemies”).

5.According to the applicant, he was and still is a supporter of the Muslim League (Noon) (“MLN”). There were heated arguments between MLQ and MLN in one day around 2000 to 2005, which led to the Enemies assaulting the applicant. He claimed to be followed and tracked by MLQ members for 1.5 months. They threatened to kill the applicant every night. His Enemies continued to target the applicant with verbal threats, which led the applicant to leave Pakistan. Details of his claim are set out at paragraph 8 of the Notice of Decision dated 15 October 2021 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”).

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director assessed the applicant’s claim and dismissed his claim. In summary, the Director found that there were no substantial grounds for believing that there would be any substantial risk of being harmed or killed by his Enemies; that the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment was indicative of a small future risk of harm; that there was no evidence showing that the Enemies were acting in official capacity as the applicant was able to depart Pakistan through proper immigration channel without interference by the government [13]; that state protection was available [14-18]; and that internal relocation alternatives were available and reasonable [19-20].

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 25 April 2022, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which the Board reminded itself that the appeal was in fact a re-consideration of the matter from the beginning and all questions of fact and law were at large [21].

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board found the applicant was not telling the truth and did not find that the Enemies were so powerful and influential as claimed [38]. In any event, having considered the Country of Origin Information, it found that state protection appeared available to the applicant [45-46], and internal relocation was a viable option [60-62]. In conclusion, the Board held the applicant’s claim failed under all applicable grounds. It therefore dismissed his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL000527_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 23 June 2022 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant complained that the Board did not accept his evidence.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The 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 Board.”

15.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

16.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 20^th day of August 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