BabelCite

Idrees Sohail and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2186/2025[2026] HKCFI 1351
Court
High Court CFI
Date11 Mar 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 2186/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2186 of 2025

BETWEEN
  Idrees Sohail 1st Applicant
  Sohail Shamaila 2nd Applicant
  Sohail Manahil 3rd Applicant
  and  
  Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Putative
  Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Respondent
  and  
  Director of Immigration Putative
    Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

    consideration of documents only;      or
   consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The 1st applicant is the father (“the father”) and the 2nd applicant is the mother (“the mother”) of the 3rd applicant, their daughter, now aged 21 (“the daughter”).  They are illegal immigrants.

2.They had lodged a non-refoulment claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).  By Notice of Decision dated 28 December 2016 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected their claim.

3.They appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  The Board dismissed their appeal.  They applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision.  The Court of First Instance dismissed their appeal.  They appealed to the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and set aside the Court of First Instance’s Order.

4.By consent of the applicants and the Director, their appeal was remitted to a differently constituted Board for re-consideration.

5.By Decision dated 5 September 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board of different constitution dismissed their appeal.  I shall now call this Board of different constitution (“the Board”).

6.The applicants jointly apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

7.The applicants did not request a hearing.

8.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 and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicants

9.The applicants are nationals of Pakistan.

10.The applicants lodged a non-refoulement claim, on the basis that, if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by Mr Amanullah and his gangsters, who had lost a court hearing of land dispute because the father’s brother had given evidence at the trial against him.  Mr Amanullah wanted the father to hand over his brother to him.  The father refused to do so.

11.Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL002186_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

12.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.   risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.   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”);

c.   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

d.   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”).

13.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director assessed the applicants’ claims jointly on all applicable grounds and dismissed their claims on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

14.On 14 May 2025 and 24 June 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for their appeals.  The applicants and the Director were legally represented before the Board.  The father had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

15.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   Based on the evidence, it did not accept the applicants have a well-founded fear, if they indeed hold any fear.  Nor did it find the evidence demonstrates that they will need to hide from Amanullah, or anyone else, if they return to Pakistan. [149]

(2)   Having considered all the claims, it was sure that there would not be risk in the foreseeable future if they return to Pakistan.  Therefore, they do not need any non-refoulement protection. [153]

(3)   There will be state protection for the applicants if they return to Pakistan even if the circumstances change and they need protection. [154]

(4)   They do not need internal relocation.  But if they so need, they may relocate to Karachi. [155]

(5)   Even if they hold a subjective fear living in Karachi, they will have protection by the state by police, a functioning legal system and human rights organization. [157]

(6)   It concluded that the applicants have failed to demonstrate through the evidence that there are substantial grounds for concluding that they face, individually or collectively, a real risk of harm or death or other proscribed harm at the hands of Amanullah, or anyone associated with him, or from any other individual, or group or entity if they are returned to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. [158]

16.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed their appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

17.The applicants filed Form 86 on 29 September 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

18.In support of their application, the applicants said that the Board had disregarded their dangerous situation.

DISCUSSION

19.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicants’ appeal.  The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board.  See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

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

21.The reason under paragraph 18 is the applicants’ bare allegation without any evidence in support.  It is invalid to challenge the Board’s Decision[1].

22.The applicants therefore fail to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in their proposed judicial review.

DISPOSITION

23.I refuse to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss their joint application.

 

 

Dated the 11th day of March 2026

  (Allen LEE)
for Registrar, High Court

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



Notes for the Applicant:

If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:

        
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);

b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and

c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
   Sent to the Applicant
on 11/3/2026

Idrees Sohail,
Sohail Shamaila & Sohail Manahil

Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil.		   Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 11/3/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 5782(R),
USM 5783(R),
USM 5784(R)

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL 3388-90/16 (CZ)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1

 

 


[1]   The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:

“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”

 

 

Cites 6 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Tk v. Michael C Jenkins, Esq
[2013] 1 HKC 526 · Court of Appeal
21 Nov 2012
Full analysis
Nupur Mst v. Director of Immigration
[2018] HKCA 524 · Court of Appeal
16 Aug 2018
Full analysis
Re Salim Ahmed Alias Md Salim
[2020] HKCA 244 · Court of Appeal
23 Apr 2020
Full analysis
Re Mizan Sikder
[2019] HKCA 20 · Court of Appeal
11 Jan 2019
Full analysis
Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

Ahibafu Jennifer Oluchi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2891/2019 · High Court CFI
23 Dec 2025
6 shared citations

Vu Van Phuong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition

HCAL 1761/2025 · High Court CFI
09 Sep 2026
6 shared citations

Hoang Anh Thuy v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1643/2025 · High Court CFI
04 Sep 2026
6 shared citations

Tran Tien Dat v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1626/2025 · High Court CFI
04 Sep 2026
6 shared citations