Fasil Iqbal Alias Faisal Iqbal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 191/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 191 of 2022

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) Sabrina Ho:

1.  The Form 86 be amended by naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only putative respondent.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 12 April 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the following decisions:

a.   The Decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 28 August 2018[1] (the “Imm Decision”);

b.   The Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 9 February 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”). In the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected the Applicant’s appeal against the Imm Decision.

2.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and stated that the Imm Decision and the Board’s Decision were wrong as they failed to take into account the dangers and risks of his life.  The Applicant asked the Court to grant him leave to apply for judicial review so that he can seek legal assistance from the Legal Aid.  

3.The Imm Decision is not susceptible to judicial review as it has been superseded by the Board’s Decision once an appeal against it to the Board has been pursued by the Applicant: see Re Moshin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at para. 45.  Thus, I treat the Leave Application to cover the Board’s Decision only.  

4.In the Form, the Applicant named both the Director and the Board as the proposed respondents and interested parties.  I will amend the Form on my own motion to name the Board as the only putative respondent and the Director as the only putative interested party.  

5.By a letter dated 19 January 2026 (the “Letter”), the Applicant made further contentions in support of his Leave Application.  I will summarise them below:

a.   The Applicant’s life is in danger in Pakistan.  There is internet in Pakistan now and it would be very easy to locate the Applicant;

b.   Reports from human rights organisations and media indicate that Pakistani citizens suffer significantly from law enforcement abuses, particularly affecting vulnerable groups like Baloch activities and minorities;

c.   There were torture and custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detention.  Activists and protestors, especially Baloch rights advocates, face detention without charge;

d.   The law enforcement agencies also use excessive force and they weaponise the law.  They discriminate the minority communities systematically;

e.   There is impunity and corruption in the officers, which allows abuses to continue;

f.   The Pakistani military force is very powerful.  The military officers have called the Applicant and looked for him at his home in Pakistan.  They threatened to kill the Applicant;

g.   The Pakistani government has blocked his passport application;

h.   The Applicant had sold all his properties in Pakistan;

i.   The Applicant is married to a Hong Kong Permanent Resident.  His wife is sick and he needs to take care of her.  

6.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 28 January 2026 (the “Hearing”).  At the Hearing, the Applicant largely repeated his assertions in the Letter and said that the Pakistani government wanted him to be on their side, if he refuses, the officers of the government would kill him.  The Applicant also said that the ISIS agency and the government were the problems.  

Background

7.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail 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[2] for reference.

Discussion

8.The relevant legal principles are well established.  The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board.  Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para. 14.  There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. 

9.Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

10.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s situation, including his evidence and his grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection.  Having examined the relevant evidence in detail, the Board found that the Applicant is not a credible or reliable witness.  The crucial aspects of his core claims consist of inconsistencies, inventions and implausibility: see the Board’s Decision paras. 149-165.  The Board also found that the Pakistan government is willing and able to provide effective protection to its citizens.  There is no clear evidence that the Pakistan government refuses or is unable to offer effective protection to the Applicant if he resorts to it: see the Board’s Decision para. 203‑212.  In addition, the Board considered that there were internal relocation options available to the Applicant: see the Board’s Decision paras. 213-217.  On the above bases, the Board found that the Applicant would not face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk or BOR 3 Risk[3] if he returns to Pakistan and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras. 261-263.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

11.With respect to the Applicant’s assertions in paragraphs 5 (a) to 5 (e) above, the Board had considered the COI of Pakistan in detail before reaching the Board’s Decision: see Appendix D-I of the Board’s Decision.

12.As to paragraph 5 (f), the alleged threats from the Pakistani miliary officers was only a bare assertion on the Applicant’s part without any evidential support.

13.With respect to the Applicant’s complaint in paragraph 5 (g) above, the assertion is not supported by any evidence.  The passport payment receipt which the Applicant submitted only shows that he has made an application for passport with the Pakistan government, it does not show that the application is blocked.

14.With respect to paragraph 5 (h) above, the Applicant’s transfer of properties in Pakistan in irrelevant to the Leave Application.  

15.As to paragraph 5 (i) above, the fact that the Applicant is married in Hong Kong is irrelevant to the Leave Application.  

16.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para. 23.  I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

17.For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave Application.

Dated the 10^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