Sheraz Ali v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 608/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 608 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) Jeffrey Chau:

1.   Form 86 be amended, naming only the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 dated 3 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 20 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 15 September 2020.

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion, naming only the DOI as the putative interested party.

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

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  In gist, he fears that he will be harmed or killed by Rashid Ali should he return to India due to a land 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.

Discussion

5.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.

6.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.

7.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.

8.The Applicant’s affirmation enclosed document with a section titled “Grounds for Judicial Review”, which contains 5 grounds.  However, those grounds are vague and generic, and do not in truth point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision, notwithstanding the fact that the grounds adopted similar terminology.  This Court has seen these standard grounds many times.

9.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 [92-95].  In particular, the TCAB concluded that the Applicant had falsely manufactured the central elements of his claim, ruling that his account was not credible [87, 88].  The TCAB was perfectly entitled to come to this conclusion in view of the numerous and significant discrepancies in his evidence without any substantive explanation [85, 86].

10.There is a clear mismatch between the purported grounds the Applicant raised and the actual findings of the TCAB.  The TCAB’s ruling focuses on the Applicant’s credibility.  The purported grounds do not contain any substantive challenge on this issue.

11.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision whether as alleged in the grounds or at all, 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 9^th day of March 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