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

Case No.HCAL 1093/2021[2026] HKCFI 149

Court

High Court CFI

Date24 Mar 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1093/2021

[2026] HKCFI 149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1093 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Ali Shahzad	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 the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and the Applicant’s oral submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 3 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 July 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 27 November 2018.

2.The Applicant attended an oral hearing before this Court on 5 January 2026, during which he submitted that further inquiry is necessary for his case. However, no substantive ground of judicial review alleging illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety was advanced in his Form 86, supporting affirmation or oral submissions. Later on 13 March 2026, the Court received a letter from the DI, in which it was said (a) the Applicant had expressed in an earlier letter dated 4 February 2026 that he would like to withdraw his judicial review application as he wanted to return to his home country; (b) removal proceedings of the Applicant would be resumed as soon as possible.

3.The Applicant has not filed any court document to formally seek leave to withdraw this leave application. In view of the letter from the DI, I tend to accept that the Applicant has decided to withdraw this court application on his own volition and free will. That said, out of abundance of caution, I will still consider the merits of the leave application, especially where I have heard from the Applicant in a court hearing.

4.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, a Pakistani, was based on a dispute with a person called MZ; it was said this person had political ties and could influence the Police. The Board, after a hearing in which the Applicant was legally represented, came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was not reliable. Moreover, the Board found no reliable evidence that the Applicant was subject to any real risk of ill-treatment under the applicable grounds; his appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision was thus dismissed.

5.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case, with an oral hearing, and assessed intensely its factual issues. The application for leave to apply for leave is thus dismissed.

Dated the 24^th day of March 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 24 March 2026 Ali Shahzad 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 24 March 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14789/18/12/146/P2954 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4159/18 (formerly RBCZ 13568/16) (T5S98) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1