Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1779/2020

[2026] HKCFI 259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1779 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Sheraz Muhammad	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 the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu:

(1) Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

(2) The application herein for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 7 September 2020, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), affirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 22 February 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), which rejected his claim for non-refoulement protection under BOR 2.

Background

2.The material facts of this case, including the Applicant’s personal background, the incidents relied upon to allege that his life would be endangered upon return to Pakistan by members of Shia as he belonged to the Sunni sect of Islam, together with the immigration and procedural history, have been comprehensively set out in the Board’s Decision. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat them in full. For completeness, reference may be made to the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which is included below[1].

3.Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions herein.

Discussion

4.The Board found the Applicant’s general credibility to be gravely in doubt. It determined that the entire factual foundation upon which he sought non-refoulement protection was vague and unduly generalized. His account of the alleged incident at the mosque or madrassa in Rawalpindi City was notably lacking in detail and riddled with internal inconsistencies.

5.The Board was therefore unable to attach any weight to the Applicant’s account of events said to have occurred prior to his departure from Pakistan. It expressly rejected the Applicant’s assertion that he had attended a religious gathering in Rawalpindi in 2013 and was attacked by Shia Muslims as alleged, or at all. The Board was satisfied that the Applicant had fabricated the core of his case in the hope of advancing his claim for non-refoulement protection under BOR 2.

6.Taking the Applicant’s evidence in its entirety, the Board concluded that he had failed to establish that there existed a real risk, or a real chance, that he would be arbitrarily deprived of his life in contravention of BOR 2.

7.The determination of the factual issues fell solely within the jurisdiction of the Board. The assessment of the risk of harm was, in essence, a matter for the Board, which was entitled to conduct that evaluation on the basis of the evidence before it. In undertaking this task, the Board properly identified the burden and standard of proof, applied the relevant principles of law, and upheld a high standard of fairness (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

8.The role of the Court in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. Having subjected the Board’s Decision to rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, and applying the enhanced standard required by law, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has sufficiently established any error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality on the part of the Board. In neither Form 86 nor in his supporting affirmation has the Applicant identified any valid or effective public law grounds in support.

9.Accordingly, the intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success (see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Another (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

Conclusion

10.For these reasons, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 15^th day of January 2026

(Edison Ho)
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 15^th January 2026 Sheraz Muhammad 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 15^th January 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 257/17/3/28/P71 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 9001460/16 (Formerly RBCZ 1320/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)