Azad Muhammad Irfan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 732/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 732 OF 2021

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 21 May 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 22 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 14 August 2020.

2.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. The Applicant was absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification for his attendance.

Background

3.The Appellant is a national of Pakistan. In gist, the Applicant’s claim is that he was a Sunni and converted to become a Shi’a in October 2018. In December, he was informed by his friend that someone called Jamil intended to kill the Applicant because of his conversion. As a result of being told this in early January 2019, the Appellant left to Karachi for two months and then travelled to Mainland China, from where he came to Hong Kong. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, TCAB’s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein.

Discussion

4.The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

5.I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. While I also remind myself that in non-refoulement cases, I would adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court would not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

6.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

7.The Applicant did not state any grounds on which the relief is sought, and hence did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86.

8.As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available and found that on the basis of the same, applying the correct legal principles in respect of all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [29-42]. In particular, the TCAB remarked that the Applicant’s claim was one of the vaguest the TCAB had ever heard [15-17], which led to the finding that Jamil did not exist and did not threaten the Appellant or follow him to Karachi, nor was Jamil a State actor [18-20]. The TCAB also found that the treatment of the Applicant did not rise to the minimum level of severity required for a finding that he had suffered persecution, and in any event, he would be afforded state protection [24] and it would be safe for him to move to a different part of Pakistan (taking into account the relevant reliable country information relating to Pakistan) [26-28].

9.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Dated the 24^th day of December 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