Rajesh Narain Parmar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 709/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 709 of 2021

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 the Applicant being absent  in open court.

Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 17 May 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 16 April 2021 (the “leave application”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) in his Notice of Decision dated 3 October 2018 (the “Notice”), refusing his application for non-refoulement protection.

2.The Applicant had requested an oral hearing. A hearing on 9 February 2026 was scheduled for him and Notice of Hearing was sent to him by post on 15 January 2026 to his address as stated in his Form 86 and to his address as discovered from the Immigration Department on 11December 2025. Neither of the notices has been returned through the post. The Applicant had never informed the court of any change of address since filing his Form 86. There is nothing to suggest that he had not received either of the notice of hearing or had moved. An attempt was made in the afternoon of 6 February 2026 to contact him by telephone to remind him of the hearing, but the calls were not answered. The Court was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been duly served on the Applicant and that the Court had tried its best endeavour to bring the hearing to his notice. But he did not appear at the hearing. Having considered the nature of the application and issues raised, the Decision, the papers, the applicable legal principles and all the circumstances, the Court considered that the leave application may be justly determined on paper without an oral hearing.

The Applicant’s case

3.The Applicant is a Pakistani national, aged 49. His personal background, the factual background leading to the present application, the basis of his claims and the arguments he advanced, the finding of the Board and the reasons for its Decision are set out in details in the Board’s Decision. These will not be repeated here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In gist, he claims that if returned to Pakistan, he will be killed by the Muslims because of religious persecution and for being the only Hindu family in the area.

4.The Applicant was born and brought up in Baldia Town. His family was the only Hindu family in the area. He had been exposed to verbal abuse because of religious discrimination. He learned Hinduism in India and preached Hinduism in various provinces in Pakistan. He was married in 1997 and has two children. The Applicant’s case is that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in a number of incidents described below which lead to his departure from Pakistan to Hong Kong.

5.The 1999 debates: In late 1999, the Applicant was invited by some Muslim preachers and Imams to participate in a religious debates to discuss religious differences. He believed that was arranged in response to the growing anger about his preaching. During the first session of the debates, he was kicked by a Muslim boy who accused him of blasphemy. The debates ended in hostility. He was verbally abused by the spectators at the scene. Tracking and verbal abuse continued at his home.

6.The 2000 burglary: In 2000, the Applicant left the family house in Baldia Town and went to Hyderabad to avoid the Muslims. His family house was burgled while he was away. The burglars were armed with at least a rifle and a dagger. They threatened to abduct his wife and younger sister if he did not cease his religious activities. He reported the burglary to the police, but no action was taken. He was targeted for more serious physical abuses. He feared he would be killed.

7.The 2000 kerosene incident: After his return from Hyderabad, he was captured, tied up, had kerosene poured over his body, and was threatened to have him burnt if he refused to stop preaching. He remained silent. Then, his perpetrators released him, saying it was a joke.

8.The assault and accusation of blasphemy: One day, he was beaten up in a market and accused of blasphemy. He was stabbed with a sharp and hot metal rod into his right thigh. His wrist was slashed and his assailants poured stinging agent on his wound. He fell unconscious and was brought home by some good hearted people. He was hospitalized for one or two days. He made a report to the police, but nothing was done. The police said there was nothing that they could do.

9.The chili powder incident: A few days later, his wife, mother and sister were attacked by people throwing chili powder in the air near them. Some people also pulled their clothes.

10.The ‘Fatwa’: Two weeks after that attack, the Applicant’s family moved to live with his father in his father’s government quarters. They were safe for the first few months. Then, the Muslims came. They threatened to kill him and insisted that he be converted. At the time, the Applicant was preaching in Manghopir. Because of his preaching, the Muslim muftis were considering whether to issue a ‘Fatwa’ against him. Mustis are Islamic jurists qualified to issue a non-binding opinion called ‘Fatwa’ on a point of Islamic law. The Applicant thought he was in danger of being tortured or killed.

11.In 2003, his wife left him because of his problems with the Muslims. Then, he fled to Hong Kong, leaving his two children to be taken care of by his parents.

The finding of the Board

12.The Applicant testified before the Board. The Board had significant concerns about the credibility of his account which led the Board to the conclusion that he was not be believed and that he had failed to establish his feared risk that he would be harmed or killed by the Muslims.

13.He claimed in his written evidence that the burglars threatened to abduct his wife and younger sister if he did not cease his religious activities. But he was unable to tell the age of his siblings until after the oral hearing. More importantly, he was not even able to tell roughly how old his younger sister was, not even whether she was a young child or a teenager. The Board found it odd that if he was faced with such a threat that he would have no impression as to how old his sister was at the time to assess the degree of danger to her. Further, he said that at the time of the burglary, his brother was unable to remember details of the events clearly, as he was only a child at that time. But on the incontrovertible evidence, that brother was 19 years old at the time. The Board was concerned that he was not telling from his personal experience what had happened to him and his family in the 2000 burglary.

14.The Applicant’s only evidence before the Director as to how he had offended the Muslims in the 1999 debates was his challenge to the Muslims that if they were convinced by what he said why would they not be converted to Hinduism. However, before the Board, he gave five other more serious and more offensive reasons which agitated the Imams. When confronted, he said that he did so for brevity. The Board was unable to accept that one would give up more important points for brevity reasons.

15.The Applicant gave different reasons for his return to Baldia Town from Hyderabad. In his written evidence to the Immigration Department, he said he returned because his family was being harassed by the Muslims with phone calls and letters during his absence. He mentioned the threat to kidnap his sister and wife during the 2000 burglary. But, he made no mention of the kidnap of his brother. But, during the screening interview a year later, he said his younger brother was kidnapped and so he returned home. In the Supplemental Claim Form (“SCF”) he filed six years after that screening interview, he also made no mention of his brother having been kidnapped while he was staying in Hyderabad.

16.His parents also made no mention of the kidnap of his brother, though they mentioned the threats to kidnap his wife and sister, the Chili power incident and the assault on one of their sons. His other brother’s statement also made no mention of himself or another brother having been kidnapped during the 2000 burglary. The Applicant’s evidence that one of his brothers was kidnapped, was contradicted by his own evidence, his parents’ letter as well as one of his brothers’ statement.

17.The Applicant gave three different accounts of the circumstances under which he was accused of blasphemy. His first version was that a Muslim boy kicked him and accused him of blasphemy during the first session of the 1999 debates. Then, he said he was accused of blasphemy during the assault in the market. Before the Board, he said that the accusation was made during the final stage of the 1999 debates.

18.The primary basis of the Board’s Decision is that it found the Applicant not credible and that he was not to be believed. On that basis, it found he had failed to establish the factual basis to support his entitlement to protection under any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”).

19.However, the Board went further. It also assessed the Applicant’s claims on the basis of the factual case as he asserted. As the 1999 debates occurred 21 years ago, nobody knew whether the Imams are still in the position to order harm to be done on the Applicant. Also, according to the Applicant, those who attended the 1999 debates came from a mosque attended by Afghans and there is no evidence that the Afghans are still staying in the area or even in Pakistan after 20 years. The Applicant was assaulted twice. He gave no evidence that the injuries were serious. Even for the worst assault, he was only hospitalized for one or two days. His family basically remained safe. There were no news about some of the known attackers. No Fatwa had been issued against the Applicant and no formal charge of blasphemy had been laid against him. In the circumstances, the Board did not accept that the alleged risks of harm under all the four applicable grounds was likely to materialize.

20.On the basis of authoritative and credible country of origin information (“COI”), the Board was satisfied that state protection is ready and available to the Applicant, had he resorted to it before leaving Pakistan or if he would upon his return. It also found internal relocation feasible to avoid the risk of harm.

21.Applying the law applicable to the non-refoulement protection under the USM to the above facts, the Board found even on the basis of the factual case as asserted by the Applicant, he had failed to establish his entitlement to protection under any of the applicable grounds under the USM.

22.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the Board’s Decision.

Grounds for judicial review

23.The Applicant has not advanced any grounds of application in his Form 86 or in his supporting affirmation. He forwent his last opportunity to advance his grounds before the Court. In the absence of specific grounds of application or grounds with sufficient particulars, the Court could only focus on the usual challenges raised in a judicial review, such as error of law, procedural unfairness, and irrationality in the Decision.

Overall scrutiny

24.Having rigorously examined the Decision, the papers and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the four applicable grounds under the USM; the burden of proof and standard of proof; correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness.

25.The Board assessed the Applicant’s evidence carefully, tested it against common sense and inherent probability. It found multiple and significant discrepancies among his written evidence before the Director, his screening interview, his SCF and his testimony as regards the core issues of his claims. The Board’s primary finding is that the Applicant was not credible. It did not accept he had proved he would face a real risk of any of the proscribed harm, if refouled. It therefore found he had failed to his entitlement for non-refoulement protection under any of the applicable grounds under the USM. It gave full reasons for its finding.

26.However, the Board went further. It assessed the Applicant’s claims on the basis of the factual case as he asserted after making some further finding of secondary facts and after considering the COI. It was on that basis that the Board found the Applicant had failed to establish the factual basis to support his claims for non-refoulement protection under any of the applicable grounds under the USM. That is the secondary basis of the Board’s Decision.

27.Both the Board’s primary and secondary basis of its Decision are mixed findings of fact and of the law. Insofar as they are finding of the law, they are absolutely correct. Insofar as they are findings of fact, they are exclusively within the realm of the Board, which the Court on a judicial review will not interfere save when such findings were made as result of error of law, procedural unfairness or that the Decision is irrational. The Court could detect no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Decision. The Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test. It is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. Basically, the Applicant failed to discharge his burden of proving his fears and risks. The Decision is utterly without fault. The proposed judicial review has no realistic prospect of success.

Conclusion

28.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s leave application is refused.

Dated the 12^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