Case Document

100%

HCAL 68/2020

[2025] HKCFI 6248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 68 OF 2020

BETWEEN
	Muhammad Ashraf	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 Hon B. Fung J:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant Muhammad Ashraf filed the Form 86 dated 7 January 2020 seeking leave for judicial review of the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“DoI”) dated 18 May 2018 and Decision of the Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 16 December 2019 against his non-refoulement claim. The Applicant was absent at the leave hearing.

2.The Applicant was born in Pakistan in 1981. He said he cheated Asif over 2 million Pakistani Rupees in gambling and was unable to pay the sum. Asif belonged to the Pakistan Muslim league (Nawaz) and he belonged to the Pakistani People’s Party. Asif had asked the Taliban to kill him. He was in fear for his own life and of the family members.

3.Asif and friends had come to the shop of the Applicant’s father. Asif was armed with gun and shot and injured him. He did not reported the matter to the police since they would only listen to people with money.

4.His parents were also harmed by Asif and were hospitalized. The matter was reported to police but they would not listen.

5.Internal Relocation not possible since he would be found out, hence he came to Hong Kong. He got married in Hong Kong in 2014.

6.The Adjudicator considered his appeal on the comprehensive grounds: (1) the risk under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) (“torture risk”); (2) risk to his right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap.383) (“BOR2 risk”). (3) risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP risks”) under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR3 risk”); (4) risk of prosecution with reference to the non-refoulement principles under Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (“persecution risk”).

7.The Adjudicator rejected the credibility of the Applicant because there were discrepancies in his evidence, in particular on whether he stayed home or went to Lahore after the shooting. The Applicant explained because there was a lapse of time of about 10 years but was not accepted. The Adjudicator also did not accept he could be found out even if relocated.

8.Judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of the refoulement claim, but to consider whether the original decision maker(s) has erred in the law, irrationality in the decision(s) or procedural unfairness (see cases: 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).

9.The Form 86 did not contain any grounds, and the Affirmation simply exhibited the Adjudicator’s decision with any grounds.

10.Hence, leave is refused.

Dated the 12^th day of December 2025

(Kitty Lam)
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 12 December 2025 Muhammad Ashraf 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 12 December 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11774/18/5/359/P2281 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1202/18 (Formerly RBCZ 2000210/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)