Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2179/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2179 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ahmed Shabbir	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 documents only; or

consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- the Director of Immigration be named 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 filed on 29 October 2020 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 22 October 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form, the Applicant did not name any proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.

3.The Applicant did not request an oral hearing for the application. As such, I proceed to deal with the Leave Application by way of paper disposal.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s earlier decision dated 10 April 2017 (the “Board’s Earlier Decision”) and the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlinks to the Board’s Earlier Decision[1] and the Board’s Decision[2] are included below for reference.

Discussion

5.The applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14)

6.In the Form and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that he faces a serious life threat in Pakistan, and that he strongly condemns the Board’s Decision. He however did not explain why he considered the Board’s Decision erroneous.

7.On 22 December 2021, the Court received a letter from the Applicant. In the said letter, the Applicant said he would like to update the Court on the then current situation in Pakistan. He attached some news articles which purportedly show that there was an increase in religious attacks and conflicts in his sect. The Applicant further said there were hundreds of unnoticed and disappearance cases that were not reported due to the involvement of the police force and corruption from high profile politicians and religious scholars. He concluded in saying that the community of his sect always faces threats and life threatening situation. Lastly, the Applicant highlighted a recent incident in his home town which involved a Sri Lankan national who was allegedly brutally lynched and killed by being set on fire on 3 December in the name of Islam.

8.I do not consider any of these alleged updates regarding the general situation in Pakistan assist the Applicant’s Leave Application. None of the articles adduced is related to the Applicant personally. The Board’s Decision was in relation to “BOR2 Risk” only. The Board had already dealt with other claims in the Board’s Earlier Decision. As the Applicant had not advanced any evidence to establish that he was a criminal wanted by the police or that he was going to face serious charge or punishment of his country, the Board was entitled, and indeed correct in my view, the come to the conclusion it did.

9.I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

10.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23). Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me.

Conclusion

11.In the light of the reasons provided above, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 6^th day of October 2025.

(Allen LEE)
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 6/10/2025 Ahmed Shabbir 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 6/10/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 728/17/6/45/P202 USM 1659/15/6/45/P495 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 9001867/17 (Formerly RBCZ 1754/09) QA T/C 693/14 (Formerly RBCZ 1754/09) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)