Case Document

100%

HCAL 53/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 53 OF 2021

BETWEEN
	Saqib	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

1. Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 24 September 2020 be refused; and

2. The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 28-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally on 16 October 2019 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 17 October 2019 when he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his 2 cousins over their land dispute in his home village. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Kamal Pur Musa, District Attock, Punjab, Pakistan. After leaving school he worked as a driver to make his living, and continued to reside in his home village where his father owned 2 pieces of lands upon which his family home was built in one of them, and which were passed to the Applicant in 2008 before his father died in a heart attack.

3.However, in 2019 his 2 cousins Bilal and Waseem started to demand that the lands be given to them, and when the Applicant refused, they beat him by striking him in the head with the butts of their pistols that he fainted, and that they warned his mother that next time they would shoot the Applicant with their pistols if he still refused to give them the lands.

4.As a result the Applicant was advised by his mother to leave his home village to hide in Karachi, but later when he heard that his cousins were looking for him in Karachi, the Applicant felt that it was no longer safe to remain in Pakistan, and so on 13 October 2019 he departed for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong and subsequently raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 9 January 2020 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 24 April 2020, the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.In his decision, the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his 2 cousins upon his return to Pakistan as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from, that there is no evidence of any real intention of to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to give up his lands to them, that in any event it was a private land dispute between him and his cousins only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Pakistan with a large population of 233 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 796,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Hyderabad or Faisalabad where it would be difficult if not impossible for his cousins to locate him.

7.On 7 May 2020, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which the Board did not find necessary to hold any oral hearing and dealt with the appeal on papers based on the materials and information earlier provided by the Applicant to the Director and available in the hearing bundle before the Board. On 24 September 2020, his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1], the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of threats from his cousins over their land dispute but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of his cousins to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to give up his lands to them, and that in any event it was a private land dispute between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Pakistan as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his cousins that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.On 13 January 2021, the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or in his supporting affirmation of the same date to which he just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he subsequently attend the scheduled hearing of his application without any explanation.

10.By then the Applicant was also out of time with his application, as Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months from the day when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason to extend the period within which the application shall be made.

11.As the last day of the three-month period for him to file his Form 86 fell on 24 December 2020, the Applicant was therefore some 3 weeks late with his application, and in considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

12.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 3 weeks must be considered as significant or inordinate, for which he did not provide any explanation or reasons in his Form or affirmation, and as he also failed to attend the hearing of his application without any explanation, I am unable to see any good or valid reason for his such serious delay.

13.As for the merits, if any, of his intended application, as noted above that the Applicant has also failed to put forward any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor as noted did he attend the hearing of his application without any explanation. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his appeal to the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any merits in his intended application either.

14.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: 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.

15.In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Pakistan, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

16.In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

17.For all these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in the absence of any good reason for his significant delay, I refuse to extend time and accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 28^th day of October 2025

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 28 October 2025 Saqib 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 28 October 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16918/20/5/7/P3329 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1145/19 (Formerly RBCZ 10864/19)(T2S1) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)