Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 70/2020

[2025] HKCFI 6141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 70 OF 2020

BETWEEN
	Fraz Dil	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 Fraz Dil filed the Form 86 dated 8 January 2020 seeking leave for judicial review of the Record of Screening Interview of the Immigration Department (“ID”) dated 10 July 2018; The Decision of the Director of Immigration (“DoI”) dated 6 August 2018; and the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) dated 3 January 2020 against his non-refoulement claim.

2.The Application was born in 1983 in Pakistan. His case was based on land encounterment by his neighbours, and he feared for his life by the opponents and the police. One night in 2014, he heard gunshots outside his house, he came out and was attacked with sticks. He reported the case to the police, the police took no action but instead he was detained for a few days because his neighbours were influential. He took the case to court and the lawyer said his neighbours would probably win because they were influential. The court did not give a decision for a long time, but maintained the status quo. He was threatened to drop his case. He moved from his home town to Karachi, but his grandfather, wife and children were still living close to land.

3.In his Notice of Appeal to TCAB, he said the DoI did not know the ground reality of his native area, and the influence of the Mafia.

4.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”).

5.The TCAB noted that he basically repeated his case before DoI, but there were inconsistencies and not recalling the details. The TCAB found that he could settle the dispute by selling the land, and in any case he could relocate to other areas. It was a private dispute, and there was no torture nor prosecution by any official parties.

6.The Form 86 did not contain any ground, and his Affirmation simply attached the various decisions and interview documents. They did not contain any particular of errors by the DoI or TCAB. He was absent at the leave hearing and did not augment his arguments.

7.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).

8.Having looked at the decisions of DoI and TCAB, and there were grounds to show they have erred, and that it was unreasonable for the Applicant to relocate elsewhere from his home turf.

9.In the event, the leave for judicial review 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 Fraz Dil 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 13000/18/8/270/P2534 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2212/18 (Formerly RBCZ 12572/16)(PSO) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)