Alam Masood v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 428/2021

[2026] HKCFI 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 428 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  the decision to be reviewed be amended to the “Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 31 December 2020”

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 25 March 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) purportedly dated 25 July 2018.

2.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 22 December 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

3.At the Hearing, I pointed out to the Applicant that the reference in the Form 86 to the decision dated 25 July 2018 appeared to be concerning the decision made by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). As the Applicant had already appealed the said decision of the Director to the Board which was conducted by way of rehearing, the Board’s Decision effectively supersedes the relevant decision of Director (see: Re Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at §45). Hence, the focus should be on the Board’s Decision dated 31 December 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”). The Applicant confirmed with me at the Hearing that it was in fact the Board’s Decision that he wished to challenge.

4.Hence, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion to correctly identify the Board’s Decision as the decision which is the subject of this application and the name of the proposed respondent.

Background

5.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, he fears that he would be killed or seriously harmed by associates of the Pakistan Muslim League “Q” (“PMLQ”) if he were to return to Pakistan because of his affiliation with the Pakistan Muslim League “N” (“PMLN”).

Discussion

6.This type of leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23.  The brief reasons for my decision are set out below.

7.The applicable legal principles relating to this type of applications are well established.  The judicial review is not a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Matters of evidence such as country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

8.It is also well established that, an applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142.

9.In the Form 86, the Applicant failed to spell out any proposed grounds of review in support of the Leave Application. In his supporting affirmation, the Applicant merely asserts that he would be killed by his “enemy” if he returns to his home country. At the Hearing, the Applicant also confirmed that he had nothing to add to his application.

10.Notwithstanding the above, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision. I am unable to detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters. 

11.The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided and I cannot see any basis to claim that it was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.  In particular, the Board is plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm, given that:-

(1)   There was no evidence to suggest that PMLQ members had any intention to cause serious harm or death to the Applicant. Even though PMLQ members were allegedly equipped with weapons and had plenty of opportunities to kill the Applicant. Yet, the Applicant did not sustained any serious injury in the clashes with PMLQ members (§§18, 47, 51).

(2)   The Applicant was only a low level member of PMLN, holding the post of General Secretary of the local branch of the PMLN (§50).

(3)   The Applicant did not make any serious efforts to seek police protection. In any event, there was no evidence of any acquiescence of the violence against the Applicant by any public official or persons acting in official capacity (§56).

12.Further, I see no reason to interfere with the Board’s factual finding that in any event the Applicant could relocate to other parts of the country (§§68-73).  Having considered the relevant COI, the Board was also entitled to conclude that reasonable state protection was available to the Applicant in Pakistan (§§59-66).

13.Having regard to the above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.  Leave is refused.

Conclusion

14.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 19^th day of January 2026

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