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

HCAL 2006/2020

[2026] HKCFI 257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2006 of 2020

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 K.W. Lung:

1.  The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 24 December 2018, which is the Notice of Decision of the Director (“the Director’s Decision”), superseded by the Decision dated 27 May 2020  of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”).  This will be rectified by amendment on the Court’s motion below.

2.His application is late.  His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 27 August 2020.  His application was filed on 6 October 2020, which is late for more than 5 weeks.  This issue will be dealt with below.

3.The applicant asked for a hearing.  However, he was absent at the hearing on 22 December 2025.  I shall deal with the application on the papers.

4.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board, the Director of Immigration is the interested party and the date of the Board’s Decision is 27 May 2020.

The applicant

5.The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He is an illegal immigrant for the reason that he did not depart after termination of his employment contract in Hong Kong and he lodged his claim for non-refoulement on July 2013. His application is on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the people of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) because he refused to help them promote their party.

6.Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002006_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

7.The applicant had applied for torture claim, but he withdrew his application subsequently.  The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

b.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

c.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

8.The Director, by the Director’s Decision, refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 13 May 2020, the Board conducted an oral hearing.  He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.Having considered the evidence and materials, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  His evidence contained significant inconsistencies when compared with his evidence in writing. [100]

(2)  He had been lying through his teeth.  The Board did not accept the facts in support of claim such as he was ever involved in politics or his fight with the other rival political party.  Ultimately, the Board did not accept that he will be at risk of any danger if he returns to Pakistan nor or in the future. [127]

(3)  In any event, state protection will be available. [134]

(4)  Internal relocation is viable. [144]

11.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 6 October 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

14.As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late.  In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted.  I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.      

16.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The 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 Board.”

17.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.  There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.

18.In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19.I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 21^st 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