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

HCAL 702/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 702 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________________

C O R R I G E N D U M

_____________________

Please note the following correction(s) in the Form CALL-1 dated 11 December 2025:

On page 1, under “Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:”

Item 1 to be struck out

On page 1, paragraph 1, the words:

“… dated 28 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 13 August 2018”

should be replaced by

“dated 10 May 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the

decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 13 September 2019”

On page 2, paragraph 2, the words:

“I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as the putative interested party.”

should be replaced by

“The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same. When asked, he said that he had nothing to add.”

On page 2, paragraph 3, the words:

“The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. During the hearing, he expressed his wish to withdraw the application, as he had obtained an identity card for 4 years already, and had since visited his home country twice. The problems in his home country has already been resolved.”

should be replaced by

“The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. In gist, the Applicant fears harm from moneylenders from whom he has borrowed money to assist his bother with a marital dispute. 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.”

On page 2 paragraph 4, the words:

“I accede to the withdrawal. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19(1)], there was nothing outstanding in the action. The application is therefore dismissed.

should be replaced by:

“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.”

Insert as paragraph 5, after paragraph 4:

“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.”

Insert as paragraph 6, after paragraph 5:

“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.”

Insert as paragraph 7, after paragraph 6:

“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.”

Insert as paragraph 8, after paragraph 7:

“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 applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [81-85]. In particular, the TCAB found numerous inconsistencies in his evidence on fundamental aspects of his case e.g. [69, 72, 74, 77] and noted that the Applicant could not even consistently describe the only instance when he was allegedly directly physically confronted in relation to his claimed outstanding loan [73]. He also failed to explain satisfactorily the inconsistencies [78, 79]. It is thus wholly unsurprising for the TCAB to conclude that the Applicant’s central claim was unpersuasive and not credible in view of the highly unsatisfactory evidence [79]”

Insert as paragraph 9, after paragraph 8:

“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.”